Rating: 
Summary: Sort of rambles, has some great anecdotes and analogies.
Review: The Lexus and the Olive Tree is an important book, but in many ways Thomas Friedman renders his own creation irrelevant. He is almost schizophrenic in his writing style, arguing with himself as if he has yet to make up his mind about the things he is writing. In some ways, it seems like he just prefers to share anecdotes (which are vivid and usually humorous) from his travels around the world, rather than the typical kinds of fact-based research one finds in these sort of books. The result is that the reader can understand some of the concepts, but they can also get a little tedious, and it is hard to translate the anecdotes into something that I assimilate into my worldview.Furthermore, Friedman seems to love to quote people at length, but one wonders if indeed he is quoting word-for-word, or if he is just sort of crafting something to fit his book out of a vaguely similar comment the person may have made. But, then one thinks again, because the book is almost a little choppy in places because Friedman quotes random characters from all around the world for pages upon pages. One would prefer that he just paraphrase or use shorter quotes. Because it was written 5 years ago, some of the reading is tedious (he explains what a DVD player is, for example), and in some areas he seems to be caught up in the "irrational" dot-com whirlwind. In his revised version of the book, it sort of just drones on, pontificating for about 20-30 pages too much. Thomas Friedman is a very personable guy, and he has a lot of interesting things to say about the world, but honestly, one doesn't care for his own political/religious philosophy being injected, mostly toward the end of the book. It was just awkward to read through the final chapter or two; the book has multiple personality disorder in some regards. One almost feel like the book is written for an audience of Dick Gephardts. He wants to win the protectionist wing of the Democratic Party over with the book. He seems to be speaking to them. Maybe he is speaking to Republicans as well, but if so, he lectures a little too sanctimoniously on the environment and the notion of a social safety net (he calls Republicans "mean-spirited voices... uninterested in any compromise" and tries to argue that Africa, with its near-anarchy in places, would be a Republican's dream) to win conservatives over entirely. He sort of just randomly breaks into prostheletyzing, arguing, for example, "That the NRA should feel guilty about the Colombine massacres went without saying." Why even go into that? That's just tacky. Finally, a reader gets sort of annoyed reading his own made-up terms (Golden Straightjacket, Electronic Herd, etc.), over and over, particularly since none of them caught on whatsoever in the past half-decade since the book came out.
Some of it is dead on, though, particularly when he writes as an observer of the world rather than an activist, and this book is a good way to conceptualize globalization for those who are having a hard time adapting their political ideology in the post-Cold War era. In general, I'd say The Lexus and the Olive Tree starts off strong, ends weak, and that's a shame. It was on track to get 5 stars from me, even with the early tributes to Al Gore and other political cheap shots, but the final part of the book was just THAT lacking, that it falls to 3 stars.
Rating: 
Summary: Basic, almost insulting.
Review: In the book friedman describes several interesting points ranging from the trade offs of culture and capitalism, to the basic efficiencies of different economies, though the way he describes things is almost insulting. The metaphors and anologies used seem to indicate a journalist writing for the elderly or those who have no idea what a digital medium is. Being a young student this quickly wore on my attention span. I tried to read the book twice and failed becuase I get so fed up with his style. For example, he has a tendency to end paragraphs with exclamations that are as corny as the saying "click on that!" This drove me to the point where I would read the entire paragraph except the last sentence, obviously not the best way to read a book. The good news is that the liberal bias seen in From Beirut to Jeuraslim(sp) is nowhere to be seen, replaced by ideas that only the free-est of the free markets would survive, a complete contradiction to his pro-arab Beruit book. I would recommend milton friedman over thomas friedman, anyday, if you want an accurate portrayal of the power of the free market.
Rating: 
Summary: Yeah, it is that simple
Review: As a scientist, I value books that are clear and direct. I see the goal of writing as making complicated subjects seem trivially obvious---like good poetry, good technical writing should strike you as having been true before you read it. Only later do you realize the idea was actually new, and instantly internalized.
Tom Friedman is so talented, and so right, that you might start arguing with him without realizing he's set the framework for the debate. That maybe your arguments are finer for having read him. He's the Fred Astaire of journalists.
He has single-handedly changed middle east politics--King Jordan has copied him explicitly, and Bush's speeches run about two weeks behind Friedman's articles.
And reading his books are like taking a master class on writing style. With each big idea comes an object lesson, something like a Rabbi.
Many reviewers seem to believe that writing a book on globalization that an eight year old could understand is a bad thing. That's not the case. The simpler your arguement, the more likely it is to be true, be understood, remembered, and applied. It's an incredibly difficult thing to do. With this book, Friedman has defined the subject.
Rating:
Summary: A Balanced review . . .
Review: Friedmen's book, the Lexus and the Olive Tree seems to be more of what the world seemed to be in the 90's more then it is today. Personally, I felt Friedmen's description of globalization was for the most part on target. With the internet, investments in various markets is very much like a big herd of cows coming in a rushing wealth into various countries, and then stampeding its way out. The world is moving faster and faster. It is homogenizing at a very rapid pace. Although overhyped the internet had a huge effect on productivity across the world, braking down walls, and giving voice to those who have none. However, Friedmen's opinions on globalization are just are too idealistic. Some of the more negative reviews seem to critizise the books optimistic tone and even admit that they couldn't even finish the book. The first part of the book is extremely that way however, after chapter 13 the book does try to address globalization's negative points.
Despite that, like any pleasing ideology the book contradicts itself many times. One should not put walls up to block out globalization, but it should have this idealistic filter that would allow people to protect their culture and embrace the fruits of globalization. Another example would be free markets are great and communism is bad, but every country should put some idealistic "social safety net" up that will protect people but at the same time give people incentive to work. All of these things are easy to say, hard to implement. Friedman is a bright man, and has thought though many of these globalizations issues throughly. Although not a perfect book, was a decent attempt to describe globalization. However, Friedman describes many things in the world like milk, things simply have a short shelf life. This pre 9/11, pre enron, pre bush, pre tech bubble burst book simply has too many expired ideas. If you want a reasonably good description how globaliation was perceived in the 90's then read this book. Parts of the Lexus and the olive tree still apply to this world however if you want a more up to date understanding of the world, read his new book "Longitudes and Attitudes : The World in the Age of Terrorism."
Rating:
Summary: Not bad, but misses important points
Review: Friedman doesn't mention that indignity, disempowerment, and hunger accompany capitalism worldwide. No one sensibly denies this, yet even among those who despise capitalism, most fear that suffering would increase without it. While some certainly find capitalism odious, few celebrate an alternative and those who do generally favor "market socialism," But there's a great alternative. To transcend capitalism, we can advocate equity, solidarity, diversity, self-management, and ecological balance. What institutions can propel these values in domestic economics, as well as get economic functions done well?
To start, we should advocate public/social property relations in place of privatized capitalist property relations. In the new system, each workplace is owned in equal part by all citizens. This ownership conveys no special right or income. Bill Gates doesn't own a massive proportion of the means by which software is produced. Instead, we all do--or symmetrically, if you prefer, no one does. At any rate, ownership of productive property becomes moot regarding distribution of income, wealth, or power. In this way the ills of private ownership such as personal accrual of profits yielding huge wealth, disappear. But that's it. We haven't accomplished anything more than that, only a removal. We must go much further.
Next, workers and consumers are organized into democratic councils with the norm for decisions being that methods of dispersing information to decision-makers and at arriving at preferences and tallying them into decisions should be such as to convey to each actor about each decision, to the extent possible, influence over the decision in proportion to the degree they will be affected by it. Councils exist at many levels, and have subunits such as work groups and teams and individuals, as well as supra units such as workplaces and whole industries. Councils are the seat of decision making power. Actors in councils are the decision-makers. Votes could be majority rule, three quarters, two-thirds, consensus, etc., and would be taken at different levels, with fewer or more participants, all as appropriate depending on the particular implications of the decisions in question. Sometimes a team or individual would make a decision pretty much on its own, though within a rubric of other encompassing decisions that were made more broadly. Sometimes a whole workplace or even industry would be the decision body. Different voting and tallying methods would be employed, as needed for different decisions. There is no a priori single correct choice. There is, however, a right norm to try to efficiently and sensibly implement: decision-making input should be in proportion as one is affected by decisions.
Next, what about the organization of work? Who does what tasks in what combinations? Each actor does a job, of course, and each job is composed of a variety of tasks, of course. What changes from current corporate divisions of labor to a preferred future division of labor is that the variety of tasks each actor does is balanced for its empowerment and quality of life implications. Every person participating in creating new products is a worker. Each and every worker has a balanced job complex. The combination of tasks and responsibilities you have accords you the same empowerment and quality of life as the combination I have accords me, and likewise for each other worker and their balanced job complex. We do not have some people overwhelmingly monopolizing empowering, fulfilling, and engaging tasks and circumstances. We do not have other people overwhelmingly saddled with only rote, obedient, and dangerous things to do. For reasons of equity and especially to create the conditions of democratic participation and self-management, we establish that when we each participate in our workplace and industry (and consumer) decision-making, we each have been comparably prepared by our work with confidence, skills, and knowledge to do so. The typical situation now is that some people who produce have great confidence, social skills, decision-making skills, and relevant knowledge imbued by their daily work, and other people are only tired, de-skilled, and lacking relevant knowledge due to their daily work. Balanced job complexes do away with this division of circumstances. They complete the task of removing the root basis for class divisions that is begun by eliminating private ownership of capital. They eliminate not only the role of owner/capitalist and its disproportionate power and wealth, but also the role of intellectual/decision making producer who exists over and above all others,. They retain the needed tasks, but they apportion them and also rote and unempowering responsibilities more equitably and in tune with true democracy and classlessness.
But how much are people paid? We work. This entitles us to a share of the product of work. But how much? This new vision says that we ought to receive for our labors an amount in tune with how hard we have worked, how long we have worked, and with what sacrifices we have worked. We shouldn't get more by virtue of being more productive due to having better tools, more skills, or greater inborn talent, much less by virtue of having more power or owning more property. We should be entitled to more consumption from society's product only by virtue of expending more of our effort or otherwise enduring more sacrifice in its creation. This is morally appropriate and also provides proper incentives due to rewarding only what we can affect, not what we can't. With balanced job complexes, for eight hours of normally paced work Sally and Sam will receive the same income,. This is so if they have the same job, or any job at all. That is, no matter what their particular job may be, no matter what workplaces they are in and how different their mix of tasks is, and no matter how talented they are, if they at a balanced job complex, their total work load will be similar in its quality of life implications and empowerment effects, so the only difference specifically relevant to reward for their labors is going to be length and intensity of work done, and with these equal as well, the share of output earned will be equal. If length of time working or intensity of working differ somewhat, so will share of output earned. And who mediates decisions about the definition of job complexes and about what rates and intensities people are working? Workers do, of course, in their councils and with appropriate decision-making say using information culled by methods consistent with employing balanced job complexes and just remuneration.
There is one very large step left to proposing an alternative to capitalism, even in broad outline. How are the actions of workers and consumers connected? How do decisions made in one workplace and all others, and by collective consumer councils, as well as by individual consumers, all come into accord? What causes the total that is produced by workplaces to match the total consumed collectively by neighborhoods and other groups and privately by individuals? For that matter, what determines the relative social valuation of different products and choices? What decides how many workers will be in which industry producing how much? What determines whether some product should be made or not, and how much? What determines what investments in new productive means and methods should be undertaken and which others delayed or rejected? These are all matters of allocation, among others that are too numerous to list in their entirety here. Existing options for dealing with allocation are central planning (as was used in the old Soviet Union) and markets (as is used in all capitalist economies with minor or greater variations). In central planning a bureaucracy culls information, formulates instructions, sends these instructions to workers and consumers, gets some feedback, refines the instructions a bit, sends them again, and gets back obedience. In a market each actor in isolation from concern for other actors well being competitively pursues its own agenda by buying and selling labor (or the ability to do it) and buying and selling products and resources at prices determined by competitive bidding. Each actor seeks to gain more than other parties in their exchanges. The problem is, each of these two modes of connecting actors and units imposes on the rest of the economy pressures that subvert the values and structures we favor. Markets, for example, even without private capitalization of property, distort valuations to favor private over public benefits and to channel personalities in anti-social directions diminishing and even destroying solidarity. They reward primarily output and power and not only effort and sacrifice. They divide economic actors into a class that is saddled with rote and obedient labor and another that enjoys empowering circumstances and determines economic outcomes, also accruing most income. They isolate buyers and sellers as decision-makers who have no choice but to competitively ignore the wider implications of their choices, including effects on the ecology. Central planning, in contrast, is authoritarian. It denies self management and produces the same class division and hierarchy as markets built first around the distinction between planners and those who implement their plans, and extending outward to incorporate empowered and disempowered workers more generally. Both these allocation systems subvert the values we hold dear, rather than propelling them. What is the alternative to markets and central planning.
In place of top-down imposition of centrally planned choices and in place of competitive market exchange by atomized buyers and sellers, we opt for cooperative, informed choosing by organizationally and socially entwined actors each having a say in proportion as choices impact them and each able to access needed accurate information and valuations and having appropriate training and confidence to develop and communicate their preferences. This choice is consistent with council centered participatory self-management, with remuneration for effort and sacrifice, with balanced job complexes, with proper valuations of collective and ecological impacts, and with classlessness. To these ends, activists favor participatory planning, a system in which worker and consumer councils propose their work activities and consumer preferences in light of accurate knowledge of local and global implications and true valuations of the full social benefits and costs their choices will impose and garner. The system utilizes a back and forth cooperative communication of mutually informed preferences via a variety of simple communicative and organizing principles and vehicles including indicative prices, facilitation boards, rounds of accommodation to new information, and so on - all permitting actors to express their desires and to mediate and refine them in light of feedback about other's desires, arriving at compatible choices consistent with remuneration for effort and sacrifice, balanced job complexes, and participatory self managing influence.
Rating:
Summary: Globalization for dummies.
Review: I bought this book when I was v sure I knew nothing about globalization, but it turned out I already knew most of what the book had to say. It is an easy read and there are a couple of interesting anecdotes, but besides that very little you would take away from the book. One thing I disliked about the book is a kind of circular logic that pervades most of it:'Whatever is happening is good because it is inevitable. And it is a good thing it is inevitable, because it is good.' The fairy-tale like naivete with which Friedman simplifies complex conflicts and always supports the winning side makes you wonder if he understands them himself, or if he is doing it out of a sneaky disrespect for the reader's intellect. Some people may like his continuous optimism, but I couldn't help feeling that Friedman 'doth protest too much'. This is not a book that encourages you to think or gets you interested in reading more about globalisation. Instead it just reassures you that things are just fine, or in any case inevitable.
Rating:
Summary: Couldn't finish it...
Review: First off, I have to admit I didn't finished the book, but let me explain why. I read through the first half of the book and came to the conclusion that Friedman is a pundit for globilization - open markets, use the internet, free trade all of which lead to more money, and increased standard of living. And then half way through the book he does a complete about-face and starts bemoaning the problems of globalization: cultural homogenization, environmental degradation, increase gap between the rich and the poor, etc. I thought to myself "what just happened?", but continued reading. After about 30 more pages, I simply had to put the book down.
We all know that globalization has it's trade offs, but expecting a tribe to maintain 3000 years of oral history while being forced to work 50 hours a week in a factory to "improve their standard of living" is ridiculous - they're eventually going to have to merge with the "modern" world. To expect countries to maintain vast areas of pristine land, but have an America standard of living is also ridiculous - just look at America and the creaping suburbs. All in all, I'm pretty dissappointed with this book. If you like making your cake and eating it too, this is a great read; otherwise...
Rating:
Summary: Educational, Thoughtful, and Entertaining
Review: I started reading this book with an expectation that it was going to be nothing more then one more bleeding-heart liberal or ultra-Christian conservative trying to advance his own agenda. I was wrong. I'm sure Friedman does have a strong political stand-point, but he keeps it out of this book, and is in fact equally critical of both Republicans and Democrats.
Many of the other reviews on Amazon criticize Friedman for not telling the entire story of globalization and of putting a thin, shiny finish on something with a deep and dark underside. Maybe. Yet globalization is here and it's real. I found his point of view properly optimistic and backed by a long career in international journalism, and I think I'm a better educated and more informed citizen after reading this book.
This is the first Thomas Friedman I've read, but it won't be the last.
Rating:
Summary: A good, easy-to read, overview of an important topic.
Review: I found this book very helpful and informative. Though I am not well-versed in international economics, I found this book to be a good introduction to this subject that is both complicated and important. It is easy to read and full of ancedotes and stories that illustrate the points; these narratives make this book relatively easy to read and, dare I say, enjoyable?
I found "The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" (simply put, "No two countries that both had McDonalds had fought a was against each other since each got its McDonalds" very interesting. The next chapter, "Demolition Man", was also of particulat interest to me. It discussed how to prevent socities and cultures from being crushed in this era of globalization.
Overall, this book was worth reading because it provided a fair and optimisic look at globalization. It addressed both the postive and negative potential and concluded with some valuable advice for the future.
Rating:
Summary: Globalization: An Insider's Perspective
Review: Books rarely tackle huge topics without bogging the reader down in endless pages of academic citations or mires of technical detail; but no matter how large a topic globalization may be to our current reality, Thomas Friedman can boil the essence of it down to an understandable personal anecdote, found piece of advertising copy, or oft-repeated joke. And Mr. Friedman does so throughout the nearly 500 pages of The Lexus and Olive Tree without missing a beat.
No doubt about it Friedman is a storyteller: To strengthen his main points he uses narratives-gained from his years of experience as the foreign affairs columnist for the New York Times-to help the reader further comprehend the full impact of a global marketplace. Perhaps he may not be a college professor, but Friedman's newspaper training taught him that people choose to read copy that clearly communicates its subject.
By analyzing the current systems that make our world work, we get a birds-eye view of what economic and political life is like at the turn of the Millenium. Friedman shares stories about how technology has revolutionized and "democratized" the global economic system.
Ostensibly, the audience of The Lexus and the Olive Tree are insiders and policy makers on the globalization debate. Friedman himself has mentioned that he views writing his op-ed columns for The New York Times website as writing for a potentially global audience. But it is more likely the Western business community-specifically the US, Canada, and England-that would derive benefit from reading this. Technology firms, stockbrokers, currency speculators and hedge-fund managers would likely find their agendas well supported. That being said, Friedman's pro-business, pro-market view would be seen with skepticism amongst developing countries and detractors of globalization.
While the book is accessible enough to reach the general public, it is likely that globalization is seldom a universal hot topic. In fact, the bulk of the communities engaged in the globalization debate are futurists, Multinational Corporations, NGO's, political activists, and University students. Friedman's book is a refreshing read from the typically formal texts published by these groups, and could easily rank him as part of the vanguard of globalization proponents.
The Lexus and the Olive Tree does not choose historical exposition to build up the narrative, but rather presents a snapshot of the world through a Western P.O.V. in the changing millennium. It differs from a lot of the doom and gloom futurism presented by texts of the same era that narrowly focused on fearsome aspects of globalization (remember the Y2K scare?).
Readers simply swayed by factual evidence and case studies need not take this ride. Friedman's book is not exactly linear, but similar to a mind-map of the different subjects floating around the main topic. Friedman's anecdotal style is like you're overhearing a cocktail-party conversation with him about the things he has witnessed in his travels. Depending on the reader's mindset this could either be extremely fascinating, or utterly irritating.
Friedman is never shy about casually dropping names of well-known people he has spoken with to help validate his assertions. One could recite a litany of famous names he mentions until they are blue in the face: Former President of Mexico Ernesto Zedillo, Russian Reformer Anatoly Chubais, World Bank President Jim Wolfensohn, Cisco President John Chambers, former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin & Larry Summers, and Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. The fact that he has access to conversations with the power elite can either give the impression that his views are well in line with the players in the system, or that his integrity as a journalist may open for discussion because of his close relationships with them. These important figures should take as much credit for helping to write this book as Friedman does.
To give some background into the context of this book, in the years 1995 to 1999 the Internet had become mainstream, and technology was the driving force behind the "New Economy." America was seeing dynamic growth in the efficiency of its own market, diversification in its oversees investments, a boom in aggressive growth securities, an increased expansion of multinationals into overseas markets, and an overall stability that made the US one of the best places for doing business. During the second term of the Clinton administration, the federal budget was in a surplus, and the overall Weltanschauung was one of affluence. Given these happenings, it is no wonder that Friedman's book took a bullish stance toward the prominence of the increasing global-network.
Friedman's overall knowledge of globalization comes from the various interviewees he uses for his book. Friedman's wisdom in foreign affairs and politics is remarkable, but his cultural attitudes can be biased. He has an unparalleled working knowledge of economics coupled with a broad understanding of technology. His ideas are optimistic, but again slanted toward western views.
Friedman advocates a neo-liberal approach to the global markets in his book. In the first part, called "Seeing the System" he introduces his core thesis called "The Lexus and the Olive Tree." This anecdote serves to anchor the rest of the book in the balance between the progress of modern technology and its struggle with existing cultural attitudes.
A major caveat with this book is that chapter three, the "Backlash against the System" happens to be the shortest. Given this fact, it is easy to discern that a nearly one-sided view of globalization has been presented throughout the text. Friedman has not tried to comprehend the voices of the protestors during the Seattle Summit in 1999, and instead argues about "The Groundswell-or the backlash against the backlash." It is here when Friedman's journalistic credibility should be challenged, because all sides of the story have not been given equal time. Granted, it would have made the book more dense, but Friedman's sheer dismissal of the protests against globalization is equal to an ignorance that the system is imperfect.
In general, Friedman presents a valid if sometimes specious thesis on globalization. The bulk of his book is rooted in his Western perspective, and sometimes suffers from a Horatio Alger, pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps worldview. While it is an optimistic thing for long-time capitalist countries, it is untrue that just any competitor could win in the global market.
Furthermore, in an integrated world it takes the cooperation of other countries through geo-political alliances and foreign-direct investment to help a country choose to prosper. Every nation desires to flourish. But ingrained cultural attitudes can cause difficulty adjusting to new rules. Those countries that transition to democratic societies will never have witnessed the evolution of Western capitalism nor have the precedent to base it on.
In hindsight, perhaps Friedman should not have taken such a strong alliance with corporate leadership. Domestically post 9/11 happenings included Enron, and Martha Stewart, the formerly beloved elites who were brought financial success to investors, are now vilified much like Michael Milken had been for his dealings in "junk bonds." U.S. stockholders were taken by their corporate malfeasance, so why would Friedman have not been a believer?
Granted "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" doesn't present the same reformist stance that Joseph Stiglitz's Globalization and its Discontents contains. Nor is it a lengthy tome of changes in the world since the 1900s presented in The Commanding Heights by Yergin and Stanislaw. In some ways it is the exact reverse of the many screeds against globalization, neo-liberalism, and free-market capitalism.
Friedman is an enthusiastic believer that Western-style capitalism-akin to Hernando De Soto's beliefs in The Mystery of Capital-are the much-needed answer for the rest of the world. While that may be true in some regard, different modifications must be made if it is to be successfully implemented in transitioning economies. And what is best for the public good is increasingly left out of the process due to an ever-present belief that money solves everything. Sound economic policy must be balanced with beneficial social policy in order for citizens to see any value to it, especially since citizens are gradually getting shut out of the political process. Globalization, whether we like it or not, is here to stay. A reasonable voice is needed to make any sense of it.
There are enough moments when Friedman allows himself to be aware of the other side of things to make his arguments sensible. He lacks the zealotry of Krauthammer's "Unipolar Moment" to make his book too controversial, but nonetheless it is clear which side of the debate he and his colleagues come from. It is always clear in the text that these are his opinions, so that any literate, educated person should not take Friedman's assertions as fact, but examples he has pulled from his life, job, and travels to form his worldview. The anecdotal style makes him a great teacher. For that, Friedman must be applauded as a great thinker: Not only because he has pulled his nose out of the topical research books on globalization, but because he remains first and foremost informed by his own observations and perceptions of globalization in the world.
The Lexus and the Olive Tree is less an academic book on globalization than it is the work of a futurist. Friedman's writing, and ways of viewing the world place him more in line with thinkers like Alvin Toffler, Marshall McLuhan, and Malcolm Gladwell rather than the multitudes of policy analysts.
This incisive perspective comes from Friedman's fixation with the topic. While perhaps his original manuscript may have led to some information becoming outdated by at least four years, overall the book still remains important. There is a lot of beneficial information included, even though hindsight has proven the overly confident attitudes the US business world during the last bull market bubble proved detrimental after the following recession. Perhaps Friedman's ideas tend toward the grandiose but at their core they are informed.
Precisely because Friedman takes such a subjective and personal approach with his subject his readers are also left feeling empowered that their own ideas and attitudes toward globalization are just as valid. Because this book is written much like an extended news article, it also means that the average person reading this book will have a more informed approach regarding their views of the world. Without question, writers like Friedman are sure to "democratize" the debate on globalization by encouraging more people to participate and write about this important topic.
|
