The Great Sorting Out

The link between Friedman’s “The Great Sorting Out” and Marxist theory is uncanny. The connection is real. Marx was one of the first to visualize the global market without the complication of national boundaries. The way Marx describes the industrial revolution and how it flattened the world mirrors what is happening today in the IT revolution. Though the IT revolution is leading to a frictionless and efficient global market, it does have a downside. As I stated in earlier posts this could result in an overall loss of identity. The quote “Some sources of friction are worth protecting, even in the face of a global economy that threatens to flatten them” reflects what I believe to be the ideal outlook on the global economy.
So how are we sorting it out? Ok so I thought the story of Indiana outsourcing to the low priced India firm was humorous but what does this mean? As Friedman put it “Who is exploiting Whom?” Are we taking advantage of them by paying lower prices or are they taking away our opportunities? I thought the reaction by the Indiana politicians was wasteful, time consuming, and costly. However, I am sure many do not see it that way. As Freidman put it with horizontal collaboration, it is difficult to see who is on top and who is on the bottom.
The same way different people and process need to be sorted out so do the relationships between companies and communities. In the global market, companies cannot survive being bound to a single nation. It seems the companies are becoming global as well. Not in the old-fashioned sense of seeking cheap labor or research globally but a true global organization such as Lenovo-IBM. This company is headquartered in New York with factories everywhere from Raleigh to Beijing. The top management of the company is mixed with American and Chinese citizens. This company is not specifically tied to any one nation and is truly global company. Overall Friedman points out that investors are indifferent about where profits come from as long as companies are sustainable.
The section on Who owns What struck a cord within this chapter as it discusses the issues of intellectual property in the flat world. Freidman suggests that intellectual property law has to adjust or we as a society will not get the benefits or be protected from the drawback of a flat world. Currently there are two sides of the fence. One side suggests protecting inventor’s proprietary interests, which provide incentive for innovation. The other side would argue the free flow intellectual assets. Freidman suggests the obvious solution, which is a balance between the two. Though this seems the most logical solution, I do not believe it is feasible or realistic.