No longer using this website, but I'm leaving up old reviews. Fuck Jeff Bezos. Find me on LibraryThing: https://www.librarything.com/profile/...

I tried to plow through this book, but Thomas Friedman is the most brain-dead parrot of the ruling class I have ever known, so I couldn't finish it.

His view of globalization is that now, thanks to the paternalistic global order constructed by US multinational corporations, there is cultural and monetary things of worth out there in the vast unexplored jungles of savagery called "not the United States." As an ahistorical text that ignores the fact that elites have been trading from Occident to and from Orient for hundreds of years, the book ignores entirely the poor.

How wonderful it is to be ruling class in this new era, where poor people from all over the world can service the rich like Friedman. What an asshole.

n  The World is Not Flatn

Precis:

A big project was started in the post-war world to let countries grow and prosper and compete without using wars to do so. That was the project of globalization. A sub- or lead-project under that was the European Union. Friedman’s famous book was the recent victory cry for the Globalization Project, a chest-thumping if ever there was one!

However, any keen observer would by now have concluded that the project was riddled with flaws. But that is not to say that the vision itself was flawed. It might be a better argument to say that the flaws are more from the project being not fully carried-through than from the fact of its existence, as Stieglitz had argued eloquently in his critiques.

In the video lecture below I use the crisis in the Eurozone to draw out some of the fundamental reasons why globalization has been winding along roads that lead nowhere, for quite some time. The concentrated nature of the Eurozone crisis and the fact that it is a rich-country problem, with all the proportional additional limelight allows us to see in that microcosm what half-baked globalization has done to the haves and have-nots among the nations of the world. And by examining that, it is hoped that we might also see that the solutions to globalization is perhaps not less but more of the dosage, undiluted.

So, here, with a bit of shameless self-promotion, is the video.

n  n

Please help me improve by sharing feedback! :)

Caveat: The rest of this review wont make much sense without first watching the video…

Detail:

A single global market and complete economic integration would mean that the countries would be too tied in with each other to ever even consider further internecine warfare. Surely no one would be daft enough to compromise their own interest so badly. Solving the problems of a war-ridden world by uniting it through trade. That was right up the alley suggested by Adam Smith in his civilizing process. Maybe trade and interdependence will get the world to behave. That was the hope of the globalizing project that replaced mercantilist philosophy that preceded it. And if any part of the world had to race to be civilized, it had to be Europe whom Gandhi had ‘burn’ed famously with his quip. Hence the European Project was to be the front-runner, the trail-blazer, the avant-garde, etc.

The video above is a lecture/discussion, wherein I argue that this European project was conceived as a roadmap to a fully integrated union that will replicate a US of A in Europe; and how the EU compromised on the tougher but necessary requirements of such a project and tried to get by with stop-gap solutions like convergence criteria and the like, which, in its turn, were not enforced. All this has led to a scenario which could derail not only the micro experiment (EU), but the macro experiment (Globalization) as well.

The European consolidation project rushed into first economic and then a monetary union while never slowing down to implement any integrated Fiscal controls/transfers. This is also the case with much of the thrust of the globalization project with its emphasis on open trade and liberalizing capital flows across borders.

It was understood from the beginning that this was going to be an issue, but it was hoped that it could be worked around. Imposing any sort of fiscal control was too anathema to be considered. It could easily be argued that any move in that direction would nip the project in the bud, with the nationalistic European Governments running away from any suggestion that dilutes sovereignty as much.

An Overdose of Fiscal Discipline

This meant that a lot of fiscal discipline was attempted, not by direct control but indirectly in the form of membership criteria. The focus on such fiscal rules had been justified by two beliefs:

1. That, inside a single currency union with a common exchange rate, monetary policy, interlinked interest rates and market integrated enough to cause contagion concerns, the fiscally irresponsible were less likely to be castigated by markets that might otherwise loose confidence and move away from investing in countries/currencies in danger of running into problems of high inflation or debt.

2. That such a country that got into trouble would not be able to devalue currency or adopt lose money policies, and would also not enjoy the sorts of automatic transfers that operate in federal countries. Then the only real option to absorb a shock would be greater borrowing by the government at the reduced interest rates available to them from market being lax…

Clearly, focusing on debt-to-GDP figures and enforcing strict limits seemed the best way to overcome the problems of an EMU that is not a Federal union.

Plenty of Gaps in Financial Regulation

However, some of the gaps as far as Banking and Financial system was concerned was ignored for too long in all this concern for Fiscal discipline. The new unified market and banking system under the ECB that was being created could not be said to have any sort of full fledged monetary policy capacity since the ECB was not even given overall responsibility for bank supervision, which stayed at national level, an arrangement that has since been deemed unsatisfactory, with the planned “banking union” giving supervision of most large European banks to the ECB. It also had no obligation to act as the system’s lender of last resort nor was there any sort of deposit-insurance system that was instituted. Without a Central Bank’s capacity to conjure money out of thin air, the system was left with no one with the capacity and obligation to protect the banking system, the depositors and the sovereigns - a huge potential problem once it took over the operation of monetary policy from national central banks. Without these basic functions and powers how can a central bank truly regulate. What mechanism can it have?

Moreover, the ECB’s one-size-fits-all interest rates (and exchange rates) is a one-size-fits-none arrangement - at the same time is might be too low for Germany and other strong economies and too high for weak Mediterranean countries like Greece with debt problems, or, at other times too low for overheating countries like Greece, but too high for Germany. The German domination over the ECB also meant that loose money policy, especially radical measures like a dose of American-style quantitative easing, was mostly anathema.

Enforcement? What is that?

Then to add on to these problems came laxity in enforcement: the fiscal criteria encapsulated in not-so-bad-ass sounding schemes like the “excessive deficit procedure,", stability and growth pact, etc. However, from the very beginning the rules against excessive deficits and public-debt levels were interpreted flexibly. And once Germany and France colluded to block any official rebuke or sanctions for letting their budget deficits rise above the Maastricht ceiling of 3% of GDP and rendered it toothless, the gutting of the Fiscal requirement were complete. From then on, so the story goes, all semblance of fiscal discipline was abandoned.

All this meant that problems were only waiting to happen. And the relaxed entry of some of the mediterranean countries (one does not say no to Plato! :) ) helped precipitate this very fast.

Greece: The Petri-Dish Case

The circumstances that led to the Greek crisis, via the good pre-2008 times, and the way it was handled/botched is used as an example to show up some of these flaws and deficiencies and to highlight what needs to be done to make EU a success.

The Blame Game

It is argued that the blame should be placed on both:

1. those who created such a death trap of a currency union, to begin with, followed by the reckless borrowers and the irresponsible lenders of the first decade of EMU

2. the lax policy response later from the ECB, IMF and the stronger nations of the EU who could have limited the fallout but failed to act decisively.

It is true that the  deficit countries used the low interest rates unproductively and profligately. Not to mention the fact that the complacent financial markets utterly failed in their allocation of credit and calculations of risk. Getting markets to impose discipline on governments had been one reason for enshrining the no-bail-out rule and forbidding the ECB from monetizing government debt. But this plan didn’t take into account the irrationality of markets flush with overconfidence and easy money in the pre-2008 global economy

Discipline the Markets!

Greece was plainly bankrupt. Its debt should have been cut early and decisively rather than late and messily, thereby giving private creditors the chance to dump Greek bonds. The losses would thus fall on those that lent the money to uncreditworthy countries.

This would have hurt the bad lenders early and made them more wary of speculation (contaminated by plenty of moral hazard!). It is important to enforce discipline on the rogue elements of the markets first if you expect markets to enforce discipline on the sovereigns, whether it be in the local pond of the European bond market or the larger international waters where the sharky portfolio investors hunt.

The Austerity Question

And finally, the bail-outs (of the lenders more than the borrowers in many ways) made the mistake of enforcing procyclcical austerity measures only worsening the recessionary impact of the economic cycle and plunging Greece further into the debt trap. With no functional monetary policy and toothless fiscal policy (once lending capacity was compromised), Greece had no options but to keep accepting the loans and the conditions.

The Dark Future of Grexit

After this, a few future options for Greece are discussed including the specter of Grexit.

Even if it may seem so today, it unlikely that the EU’s single market would survive the domino-effect-led implosion, and it would probably be followed by capital controls, trade barriers and, possibly, a return to world of mercantilism!

Avoiding the Doomsday; Preventing Radicalism

How to avoid such a scenario? It would require straightening the accountability and safety in the financial system, as is already in the works with talks of a “banking union. But what is also needed are the basics of a federal budgeting process that provides public goods and redistributes income between rich and poor citizens (and states). The EU has a tiny budget, no power of taxation and no powers to borrow. And the eurozone has no budget at all, even a modest one, that could make transfers when countries suffer a downturn in the form of unemployment insurances, etc.

This would protect countries hit by the flaws of EU to escape the worst of the problems that afflict its citizens such as high unemployment. This would then allow protection against the kind of civil unrest that took place in Greece. Besides, it would also prevent the easy radicalization of politics that happen in countries where the citizens have to endure clear and present hardship even as neighboring nationals seem to living in prosperity. Slow growth and high unemployment have been radicalizing politics and intensifying rejection of both national and European politicians. So the next crisis may well be political. Anti-EU, anti-immigrant and anti-establishment parties of all colors are on the rise. Only a EU-level budget to protect the losers of “globalization” can help fight this tendency that can easily lead to protectionism across the weaker economies and thus soon among the stronger economies.

Intrusive Economics

Instead of these steps, the “economic governance” created in recent years is a soup of incomprehensible jargon: six-pack, two-pack, fiscal compact, Euro Plus Pact, European semester, annual growth survey, excessive deficit procedure, macroeconomic imbalances procedure, “contractual arrangements” for reform, and much more.

All this amounts to an unprecedented intrusion by an unaccountable EU bureaucracy that satisfies nobody!

Just as in the case of globalization, the nations on the periphery are more and more afraid that the run of the core economic system is being run by the in-countries and their institutions: that increasingly the European Union and the euro zone are deciding matters without sufficient democratic control. As the eurozone (or the western world with respect to globalization) integrates further and more intrusively, it is running into a huge potential row about the legitimacy and democratic accountability of its actions. Indeed, it is this, rather than the financial markets, that could pose one of the biggest risks to the EU’s future. As we can see the same concerns are present if we examine the international institutions such as WTO, IMF and the United Nations. The intrusions are inevitable and lack of democratic control only precipitates fear and distrust from the out-group countries, which happen to be most of the world!

The eurozone’s financial system was sufficiently integrated to spread contagion, but not integrated enough to provide resilience. It has no central budget or other means of absorbing asymmetric shocks that hit one or two countries disproportionately. Hence, when the crisis hit, the euro zone had no means of giving assistance to countries that got into trouble.

A bit of imagination should suffice to see how each of these conditions of integrated markets, contagion and no resilience applies to the globalized international markets as well. Greece paid a disproportionate price of the US’ regulatorial slackness and the 2008 crisis, so did many others across the globe. There was no system to make sure that they were protected in some manner. The markets are irrational and the international institutional system is built on a willful ignorance of this fact. We cannot have true globalization with only markets running it, just like couldn’t have had any sort of true democracy if it was merely laissez-faire that guaranteed it.

Global Federalism…?

The eurozone and the globalizing world should look to the United States and ask itself: why does the prospect of default by one state not call into question the existence of the dollar? The short answer is that the United States is a single federal country, while the euro zone is a much looser confederation of sovereign countries who are willing to contaminate one another, but not willing to help one another out.

Europe’s real folly and the folly of the globalization project as a whole was not to look for the gains from opening up of trade, financial integration, exchange-rate stability and economic efficiency, even if they might have been overstated. The madness was to believe that these benefits could be obtained on the cheap, without the political constraints, economic flexibility, financial transfers and risk-sharing mechanisms of genuine integrated markets, i.e., federations.

Clearly the answer is in some sort of Federalism, not only for the Eurozone, but also for the world? And it is worth building, and fast!

After all, Europe’s (and globalization’s) malaise is not one that time alone can heal. Delay is likely to make things worse, not better. Even if the the financial panic is kept in abeyance, the economic and political crises may well deepen. Right now the political momentum is towards fragmentation, not integration. Unless the euro zone (and by extending the argument the globalized world economy) is redesigned with greater determination, in particular through greater risk-sharing, it is unlikely to recover economic vitality. And unless the euro (and globalization) can be shown to deliver prosperity and well-being, public support for the EU Project (and the Globalization Project) will inexorably ebb away.

The eurozone crisis has the potential to destroy the European project. Something of great value may thus be lost through carelessness or timidity.

The Grecian Prod

But on the other hand it also has the potential to prod Europe and the broader world into quickened action to make sure that economic integration is attended by fiscal safety-nets and fast reductions in the accumulating democratic deficit with respect to the institutions that govern that economic integration.

The hope is that this realization and the prod for quicker action can be had from the high profile case of Greece where most of the flaws and the urgent reforms have been highlighted. Hopefully Europe will stop finding its way gradually like a blind man stumbling form one wrong turn and crisis to another before stumbling on the right room and instead sit down and chart out a roadmap for the destination it really wants to reach.

The steps to this are laid out as first having a system of transfer in place, via ECB first by making it a lender of last resort and then moving to a more integrated fiscal union and eventually a political union by the gradual addition of democratic accountability. A dreamy euro-federalist vision is thus put forth, and it is hoped that it does not bring forth much derision from the realist among the viewers!

All this can thus be connected back to the idea of globalization with a hope that eventually we might achieve similar results for the world as a whole. In short, the euro-federalist dream is extended to include another dreamy hope that the nation state system that was propagated by Europe, will hopefully be transcended by the same Europe. The EU experiment has much significance it the grander scheme of things on how the world will look like a century or so from now and the best sort of effort has to be made to make it work, even at the cost of some sovereignty or pride.

The World is Not Flat

And, one last thing: Before someone asks, “Why review this book for discussing all this?”, let me answer:

Friedman argued that the world is flat — because of Globalization.

However this whole argument would indicate that the world is not flat, because Globalization is not complete, it is not even past the first leg of the race. And the flattening of the world wont happen unless we aim for real globalization, unless the race is fully run, all the hurdles jumped.

The world needs a lot more flattening to even out the very rough edges — the edges that cut all too easily. This is because flatness is not based on merely economic or trade considerations. It has to be based on democratic accountability, when clearly the international organizations are going to have an ever more intrusive role in national matters.

If not the opposite would result — the nations would reject the international organizations and challenge their legitimacy. And the whole project depends on this legitimacy not being challenged. It could be that occasional prosperity might dampen the force of these questions, but in an integrated world crises will surely be more common and so will contagion, and then the only thing that can save the institutions and the whole globalized system is accountability and true democratic legitimacy. Globalization has to be built on democratization and not merely on ships or aviation fuel.

That then was a bloated summary of a video which is in fact much simpler and non-technical.
Again, pls do watch the video and let me know if it was fun. :)

An oldie but a goodie; this non-fiction book was popular a few years ago (2005). I read it then and took notes. By “flat” he means super-interconnected through technology, communications, trade, etc. Some notes:

Ten forces that flattened the world:

Removal of the Berlin Wall, 1989
The world wide web starting with Netscape
Work flow software
The ability to upload (local goes global)
Outsourcing – you can run a million dollar business without a single employee
Offshoring – tech guys overseas
Supply chaining – aka “just-in-time delivery” so you don’t have to have money tied up in warehousing
In-sourcing – UPS buys its own fleet of planes
In-forming: Yahoo and Google search engines
We’ve gone digital, mobile, personal and virtual



The Triple Convergence that brought about the flat world:

First, interconnecting of machines and techniques that had been around earlier leading to the fax, scanner and Xerox. (Of course invention is always like that – multiple people were working on the telephone with so many pieces lying around.)

Second, the gradually increasing impact of computers; for years they did not actually reduce staff.

Third, the gradual bringing of everyone worldwide into the game.

Countries that want to benefit from flatness have to get three things right:

Technological infrastructure to interact with the rest of the flat world
Education and training
Legal structure, taxation, intellectual property rights, etc.

A good book and very readable. A bit long (almost 600 pages).

photo from wallpaper-gallery.net

I'll be honest. This book took ages to complete but trust me every minute of it was worth it. It's an exceptionally written treatise on changing world. It's not like that everything will be new to you in this book, there'll be a lot of things that you notice or use in your quotidian life but the representation of the logic that goes behind that object or activity explained is breathtaking. Anyone who's curious about what has happened in the world in 21st century(especially since the advent of internet) or want to understand the generation gap or wants to take a glimpse of how the world's going to turn out in future, this is the tome to lift:):)

The flattening of the world that Friedman writes about refers to the fact that globalization has leveled the playing field for more people around the world than ever before. He is not arguing that all people have equal access to a middle class lifestyle, simply that more people do. While this is a boon to humanity, it comes with challenges for those of us who are already used to that middle class lifestyle.

He believes that the convergence of several factors produced this "flat" world: 1) personal computers and a more open world; 2) the internet; 3) standardization of tools and technology. PCs and the internet have given people unprecedented ability to give and receive information. Anyone with internet access can learn information and skills and share their own ideas. This can bring isolated people into the global workforce. Once people agreed on basic standards for technology (http, fiberoptic cables, coding languages, etc.) it allowed people to build off of others' ideas instead of reinventing the wheel. This makes room for more innovations where people can adapt existing tools to suit niche needs.

Friedman is a proponent of outsourcing, which often gets a bad rap in the US. It gives people in developing nations access to relatively high paying jobs while allowing US companies to save money on production/workforce costs. While it's tempting to focus on how outsourcing costs Americans their jobs, it's also important to focus on how it can benefit Americans. Outsourcing allows companies to keep prices low so Americans can buy products cheaply. Outsourcing also allows companies to invest in higher level jobs at home. Manufacturing jobs might leave, but "thinking jobs" around streamlining, managing and designing will be created at home.

Friedman believes that America is at a turning point. Earlier generations lived through America's rise to power through manufacturing and the war machine. Our generation feels entitled to a comfortable lifestyle and high salary with relatively little work. With an entire generation of people in the developing world willing to work harder for less, Americans are going to have to change our expectations and work habits if we want to maintain our lifestyles.

As a teacher, my takeaway is how critical it is to get kids interested in math, science and computers so that they will have access to the "thinking jobs" that will be created in the future. Now more than ever we need to encourage kids to think critically and about ways to design and improve systems.

Udah setahun punya buku ini.. bacanya gak kelar-kelar.. tebel banget sih.. bisa dijadiin bantal. Sekarang diniatin untuk kelar.. sayang udah dibeli tebel-tebel,.. eh salah.. mahal-mahal..

Dan hasilnya...

Amazing. Dahsyat. Friedman adalah pengamat yang jitu, jeli dan mendalam. Juga seseorang futurist yang kayaknya sih tepat.

Dimulai dengan perenungannya tentang dunia yang datar, saat one day dia bermain golf di satu tempat di India. Saat ia akan memukul, ada yg mengarahkan : “Arahkan ke Microsoft atau IBM”. Itu adalah dua bangunan baja dan kaca yang berkilauan. Seakan limbung, antara di Kansas … tidak, ia di India. Tapi semua penanda adalah icon icon Amerika.

Sesuatu yang terjadi di mana pun. Pernah saya di atas layang Casablanca persis yang di atas Sudirman. Arahkan pandang ke arah gedung Bursa Efek.. oh.. mirip dengan pemandangan yang pernah saya lihat di Hongkong. Pencakar langit yang tak akrab memenuhi langit.

Tapi bukan sekedar itu. Buku ini mengangkat kondisi kehidupan di dunia yang saat ini terasa datar. Sesuatu yang terjadi di New York, saat yang sama terjadi di Jakarta. Suatu peristiwa di belahan bumi lain, akan dapat dilihat sekejap dari belahan bumi yang lain lagi. Luar biasa. Kecanggihan teknologi, komunikasi, membuat dunia ini semakin terasa kecil. Terasa datar.

Beberapa point menarik dari buku ini di antaranya kekuatan-kekuatan yang membuat dunia ini menjadi datar. Kita yang mengalami, mungkin merasakan kekuatan itu, akan setuju dengan Friedman. Runtuhnya tembok Berlin. Netscape. Anyone remember ? browser yang sangat nyaman dipakai di tahun2 90’an akhir, ketika IE dari Microsoft belum gratis dan belum senyaman sekarang. Workflow. Yang membuat prosedur kerja tidak perlu lagi dilakukan secara manual by kertas. Dulu kalau kita ingin cuti, mesti ambil form di HRD, isi, masuk ke ruang atasan, minta approval, balikin ke HRD. Sekarang ? cukup dari meja kerja kita. Click ke web tempat cuti online, klik, klik, klik, klik, klik.. beres. No need to go anywhere. Uploading. Merubah semua orang bisa menjadi pemberi informasi. Dulu bikin website susahnya setengah mati, mesti belajar dan ngerti kode html. Sekarang. Cukup mengerti klik klik klik klik.. jadi blog yg keren. Outsourcing. Offshoring. Pekerjaan yang bukan core, berikan pada pihak lain, dan ini sudah lintas negara. Teringat pertemuan dengan seorang teman sekitar 2 bulan lalu. Dia bilang, dia akan kena lay-off. Bukan karena global crisis. Tapi karena perusahaannya mengoffshore accounting function ke India, dan di Indonesia hanya dipertahankan 3 orang, yang bertugas sebagai document scanner. Ck ck ck…

Supply Chain. Mempertegas hilangnya hambatan antar negara. Insourcing. Informing. Semua bisa mencari informasi sendiri. Googling akan menjadi mata pelajaran di sekolah ( ;-).. yg ini dari saya). Steroid. Digital, mobile, personal dan virtual. Peralatan yang menemani kita dalam keseharian, diistilahkan oleh Friedman sebagai steroid. Itu adalah hal-hal yang membuat dunia ini menjadi datar.

Yang menarik, Friedman tidak saja sebagai presentis, pengamat, tetapi juga berlaku sebagai futuris, peramal. Salah satunya adalah bagaimana kita memperkuat diri kita menjadi pribadi yang eksis di dunia datar ini. Tentunya dari kacamata bisnis.

Pengetahuan, ketrampilan, ide dan motivasi, akan menjadi modal kekuatan pribadi yang dominan. Pribadi, akan berperan dominan dalam era dunia datar. Jika dalam globalisasi 1.0, negara harus mengglobal, kemudian dalam globalisasi 2.0, perusahaan harus mengglobal, maka dalam globalisasi 3.0, pribadi lah yang harus mengglobal. Individu dituntut untuk berpikir global supaya bisa berkembang, atau sekurang-kurangnya bisa bertahan hidup. Jadi bukan saja keterampilan teknis yang dibutuhkan, tetapi kelenturan mental, motivasi diri dan mobilitas psikologis harus dikuasai. Tak pernah cukup menjadi orang yang sedang-sedang saja (mediocre).

Kita harus menjadi yang tak terjamah. Ini berarti orang yg pekerjaannya tidak dapat dioutsource, didigitalkan, atau diotomatisasikan. Apa or siapa kah itu ? Friedman membagi dalam tiga kategori. Pertama adalah orang-orang yang istimewa. JK Rowling satu contohnya. Kedua, orang-orang yang menetap. Mereka memang dibutuhkan di lokasi itu. Tukang cukur, satu contohnya. Kita tidak mungkin cukur rambut secara virtual. Yang ketiga, kelas menengah. Inilah yang terberat, karena kita berada di level ini. Maaf, bukan kita, saya. Kelas menengah harus memiliki keunggulan kompetitif untuk bersaing dengan sesama kelas menengah yang lain. Harus punya nilai tambah. Jadi meskipun secara literal, pekerjaan kelas menengah itu bisa dioutsource, didigitalkan, atau diotomatisasikan, tapi ada value di pribadi itu yang tidak bisa didapat lewat proses outsource, digital dan otomatis. Be special.

Bagaimana untuk menjadi special ?

Beberapa kemampuan harus dimiliki. Kolaborator. Orkestrator. Mampu menjadi dirigen sebuah orkestra, yang terdiri dari banyak komponen musisi, tetapi menghadirkan musik yang indah. Pesintesa. Bisa menjadi dot people, maupun big picture people. Bisa melihat gambaran luas, mampu mendeteksi gambaran detail. Penjelas yang hebat. Bisa menjelaskan sesuatu yang rumit, dalam bahasa yang mudah, sehingga dapat dimengerti oleh orang awam sekalipun. Pengadaptasi. Tinggalkan spesialisasi, arahkan ke “serba bisa” dan “adaptif”. Pecinta lingkungan. Pemberi sentuhan pribadi. Ini yang menarik. Everything with personal touch.. will be more valuable. Ingat, manusia adalah makhluk sosial yang menikmati kontak personal. Kontak manusiawi. Seasyik-asyiknya conference, tetap lebih asyik chat bilateral. Lokalisator yang hebat. Hati-hati.. bukan lokalisasi.. 8-).

Untuk bisa meraih kemampuan itu, kita harus memiliki kemampuan untuk belajar bagaimana belajar. Learn how to learn. Terus menerus menyerap, mengajari diri sendiri. Untuk bisa belajar bagaimana belajar, syarat pertama adalah cinta belajar! Or at least, menikmatinya.

CQ + PQ > IQ. Ketika dunia menjadi datar, keingintahuan dan antusiasme terhadap sebuah pekerjaan, keberhasilan, pokok masalah, ataupun sebuah hobi akan menjadi jauh lebih penting. CQ = curious quotient. PQ = passion quotient. Keingintahuan dan gairah yang tinggi, akan lebih penting dibandingkan IQ yang tinggi. Kita perlu bersentuhan kembali dengan antusiasme, gairah yang polos/kekanak-kanakan atas suatu pekerjaan, tanpa peduli gaji, jam kerja, maupun persiapan yang dibutuhkan.

Kita perlu menyukai orang. Kita harus mampu berinteraksi dengan orang lain secara baik. Keterampilan relasi, adalah aset dalam dunia kerja, dan juga dalam dunia datar. Ingatlah, interaksi yang mendalam dan pribadi, tidak pernah dapat dioutsource, didigitalkan, atau diotomatisasikan.

Tingkatkan kemampuan otak kanan, sebanding dengan otak kiri. Di dunia datar yang banjir oleh data, informasi, dicekik oleh alternatif pilihan, kemampuan yang penting adalah mendekati jiwa dari belahan otak kanan, yaitu kemampuan artistik, empati, melihat gambaran besar, dan kemampuan menelusuri hal-hal yang transenden, beyond, melampaui diri. Lebih memilih untuk membangun relasi dibandingkan transaksi. Tinggalkan one hit action.

Jadi ketika kita mendengar seseorang berbicara, lakukan yang anda cintai, itu bukan lah kata mutiara. Tapi itu adalah strategi untuk bertahan hidup, di dunia datar ini.

Mau lanjut ?.. baca saja bukunya yah…
Sementara... gak sabar saya nunggu buku terbaru dari Friedman, Hot, Flat and Crowded.

-andri-
http://kubunetwork.multiply.com

Detailed, thorough, and very informative. Friedman has a folksy style of journalism that brings complex business and social processes down to earth (though he also has an undue penchant for coining obnoxious phrases, like "glocalize" or "Islamo-Leninist"). Good for getting a grip on the major issues of globalization, including things that affect you every day and you probably know nothing about.

But you have to read between the lines. Friedman is openly supportive of globalization, and his presentation is generally from a corporate-level perspective with only occasional sorties into the gritty realities of the people who suffer because of it. I find his excessive focus on globalization's winners--India and China--disingenuous and his almost complete lack of any reference to Latin America and Africa disturbing. I find it irritating that he fails to decode the euphemisms that his executive interviewees commonly use, such as Wal-Mart's CEO referring to its "low-cost business culture" (which means no healthcare for employees). He has far too much faith in the magical power of markets to solve problems, breezily dismisses most of the serious objections to the current trends, and refuses to take seriously the social and psychological, in addition to economic, effects of globalization. But that's my political bent; your mileage may vary.

This book has two main problems unconnected to political philosophy. First, proponents of globalization, especially journalistic trendcasters, face an insoluble paradox. By their own accounts, what is happening right now is a drastic reorganization that is an order of magnitude larger than the Industrial Revolution, an order of magnitude faster, and accelerating all the time. Yet they talk about these revolutionary developments as if the changes can be managed by reformed healthcare and education policies. The Industrial Revolution was accompanied by massive dislocation, population migrations, revolutions, colonialism, wrenching poverty, industrialized total war, and so on. If globalization is really so huge and so fast, then pretending that the same--or worse--is not going to happen is just stupid.

Second, Friedman talks a lot about nations like India, China, and the U.S. with detailed policy critiques and prescriptions, but he seems to miss the logical result of globalization: the death of the nation-state. The free flow of capital and the internationalization of labor pools means transnational corporations with more money and more power than governments, with no national loyalties to tie them down and no serious rivals except each other. The erosion of the nation-state, and the imagined communities upon which modern identities are based, is as revolutionary a phenomenon as its formation in the first place, and that will necessarily change everything. I fail to understand why Friedman does not see the implications of the processes that he describes.

Anyhoo. It's worth reading, even if Friedman makes you as angry as he made me, because at the least it brings up some issues that people should really start thinking about more carefully.

I couldn't disagree more with the author's political viewpoint, but this book is a good explanation of how and why the world market is becoming what it is, as well as a facinating contrast between emerging countries is eastern Asia and socialist western Europe.

I'd like to recommend this book to every American under 35 years old, but I can't. They won't read it. Why? It's a 300-page book crammed into 635 pages.

Friedman had all sorts of good ideas--important stuff--but he's so busy patting himself on the back, telling us what he's going to tell us (or has already told us) and bashing Bush that he just rambles on and on.

Reporters are supposed to give readers the essentials plus enough facts to make the story real and enough anecdotes to make it immediate. The World is Flat reads as if it was out-sourced to one of those Indian call centers Friedman warns us wants our jobs. Too bad he didn't; the Indians might have done a better job.

For those about to read this, I commend your bravery. “The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century” is a non-fiction book regarding business, recent history concerning globalization and its implications in the Information Age, and current affairs pertaining to the resulting effect, which Friedman calls the ‘flattening of the world’. This compels me to warn you of the reasons this review will suck; I am not a celebrated (or even competent) book critic, I also do not read many business books, I am lacking computer knowledge and a general understanding of economic matters, and I’ve long since allowed my membership to the Flat Earth Society lapse. With such a high probability of failure here, you might be wondering why you should read this review. This much I think I am capable of, as this explanation panders to your interests; this review will be less than 10,000 characters in length, whereas “The World is Flat” will probably bore the tits off you for over 600 pages, all said, I’m trying to save you some time here. Also, throughout “The World is Flat” author Tommy Friedman will also confess to his own lacking credentials, which are almost identical to my own except for his repeated and humble confession he’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer, so he’s willing to tackle the important issue of the flattening of the world in a 600-page tome largely regarded as a masterpiece (presumably by people with no real world experience, who have just started their first job and have finally gotten some sort of hint about the way the business world works, or who are aspiring to land that first, comfy office job after graduating from the fast-food/retail minor leagues). To sum up this weak introduction, I’m hoping the three minutes you spend here save you hours down the road.

tSure, I am a long-winded clown with nothing of significance to say, inspired to repeat my meaningless gibberish over and over ad infinitum. After reading “The World is Flat”, I can safely say that I can’t hold a candle to Tommy-Gun Friedman in terms of sheer ability to incessantly babble on about the same points; often, he not only beats a horse to death, but rolls it over, and eventually gives it what some have called the ‘dead horse’ treatment, unless, of course, the point he’s mulling over is firmly rooted in logic and runs counter to his beliefs, at which point he’ll quickly gloss over it and dismiss it by citing a far-fetched example which couldn’t be given any more credence than the ultimate exception to the rule. For anything which does manage to coexist with Friedman’s system of beliefs, he reiterates each point dozens of times (which of course makes it more legitimate through repetition) and also provides confirmation via his preferred method, a ‘proof is in the pudding’ real life example, complete with an exciting “holy shit!” conclusion to the story, such as “only in a flat world can a man in Omaha call a customer service center, and speak to an Indian about replacement parts being manufactured in Shanghai!” These testimonials to ‘the way things are’ appear to be little more than anecdotes which allow him to brag about leaders of industry he’s currently hobnobbing with, almost always due to the critical acclaim his previous book, “The Lexus and the Olive Tree”, was awarded.

tTo borrow Tommy’s style briefly, let me repeat: “The Lexus and the Olive Tree” (TLATOT, from now on) is his significant 1999 work which I don’t even feel I need to read, seeing as Friedman consults it heavily for material for “The World is Flat”. How do I know it was published in 1999, he even mentions this fact multiple times; if every reference to “TLATOT” was removed, the book would be about 20 pages shorter. Here’s a real example, taken directly from the book: “In 1999 I published a book on globalization called TLATOT. The phenomenon we call globalization was just taking off then, and TLATOT was one of the early attempts to put a frame around it. This book is not meant to replace TLATOT but rather to build on it and push the arguments forward as the world has evolved.” Reading the words “The Lexus and the Olive Tree” so many times was headache-inducing, akin to listening to a CD skipping, without the benefit of hearing one of your preferred bands kicking out the jams.

tNone of this is very promising. What I find downright offensive in this book though, is the decision to include the word “history” in the title. When I want some history, I want facts, data, photo evidence, fossils, hell maybe even a few mathematic equations which somehow back your statement: I want truths, not bias. As far as this being a “history” of the 21st century, this book is a complete fucking failure. I can sum up Friedman’s historical account in one long, crappy sentence: “computer technology became big business and assisted every industry in reaching all corners of the globe, while changing the way everything was done and everyone’s life, and the goddam rotten Bush administration is screwing it all up.” This may or may not be true, but at the same time, for every issue which Friedman feels is impeding the stampeding march of technological advancement and globalization, he dumps the blame squarely on the front door of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Education is on the skids: Blame George Bush. Lagging economy: Ditto. Science/Tech research: George-Dub did it. Rising male impotence and shrinking penile girth: “W”s fault.

tFor someone to present a book alluding to the representation of facts, I’d expect it to be less subjective, instead Friedman carries his bias to ridiculous lengths and basically looks like a novice with his ceaseless slander of the current regime. The slanted journalism is a major drawback, and Tommy’s maligning political entities appears to stop with the Bush Administration and the Republican party, as he quotes several “wise” Democrat congressmen throughout. Also deserving of Friedman’s praise (and thus that of an enlightened reader) are what he calls the 10 Flatteners (in a long-rambling 150 page dissection of events from the demise of the Berlin Wall to the outsourcing trend), Bill Gates, Sam Walton, and of course, Thomas Friedman. Yes, in this version of his work, cleverly given the Version 3.0 tag, Friedman shows he has no qualms with shamelessly soliciting praise for his work to include in this update; a great example being how two teachers continents apart were so inspired by his wisdom to create a virtual/‘flat’ classroom, and it should come to no shock that he Googled his masterpiece to see what public reaction was, only to be assured “many references are neutral or full of praise, others are vitriolic or flat-out nuts.” After reading this book, I am hoping that in Version 4.0 Friedman takes the time to congratulate himself by asserting his work is the Eleventh Flattener.

tI would be wrong to state there is nothing of interest in “The World is Flat”, however, it’s unfortunate that most of it comes at the beginning of the book, leaving the remaining 400 pages relatively pathetic and dedicated to Tom’s musings. While describing his 10 Flatteners, Friedman isn’t given as much opportunity to state his opinion as he is later, so he does focus more on hard facts. For someone who isn’t too computer savvy or overly interested in computers in general, the history of the Internet was surprisingly engrossing. The thing which resonated most with me was his evaluation of international trade and the modern supply chain, which isn’t too shocking seeing as I happen to be a logistician myself. While it is nice to see Friedman show proper respect to the badasses working in a supply chain capacity, it is somewhat nullified that at after any tidbit he learns, he pulls off the can-you-believe-it! schtick as an exclamation point.

tStill, even with the author giving thanks to the zombies slaving away in my profession, I found most of this book extremely difficult to digest; mainly due to Tom’s insistence to surround his opinions with facts, in an attempt to solidify their righteousness. And each one of these things “has always been his belief”; he must say that about 100 times, leading me to think not only must he not do a whole hell of a lot of listening to opposition opinions, but it also seems weird that for a guy who apparently just learned this item or the other, that’s he’s always had an stance on it. Some of the things he’s always been sure of: Unchecked, rampant capitalism is a godsend and the mother of invention, big government, regulation, and any political beliefs differing from his own will ultimately stop progress dead in its tracks. Getting rich quick off some online gimmick that serves no benefit to humanity is completely awesome, participants in internet sex of any sort are filthmongers and the scourge of the Information Age. But my biggest disagreement with his beliefs is in our world-view. Friedman is stoked that almost anyone, anywhere can no compete in business nowadays, as sees this trend as the salvation to the destitute masses globally. I couldn’t disagree more, I’m more of a ‘clean your own backyard first’ guy, I could never understand extending any sort of help to anyone without knowing that my peeps are taken care of first, and I’m not particularly fond of this change in the world, in which my peeps are pissing away any advantage we once had by spreading the peas too far on the plate. I see the culmination of Friedman’s principles resulting in the American middle class becoming the working poor, whereas his book concludes with his affirming and promising account of a Pulitzer Prize winner dropping his daughter off at an affluent university on a serene September day.

Hardly groundbreaking. I kept thinking that anyone with a blog and a social network could skip Thomas L. Friedman's book The World is Flat and lose very little perspective on the world we live in.

In other words, a lot of this material feels stale, perhaps because Friedman spends most of his time rehashing old news articles. I often found myself wondering whether Friedman wasn't just looking back over his interviews and trying to make them pay a little extra in this flat world. Almost every chapter contains two or three anecdotes that begin, "while I was interviewing..." More often, however, he refers to conversations with taxi drivers, which signals lazy journalism. Still, some of these anecdotes, such as Indiana's outsourcing of their labor department to an Indian company, are amusing enough to read again.

There's no denying that most of the people Friedman interviews are actually more insightful on the subject of the flat world than Friedman is himself. I suppose that's only appropriate for a journalist, but I've often felt that the best non-fiction writers are able to make a mundane subject like food (The Omnivore's Dilemma) or baseball statistics (Moneyball) interesting to both the predicted audience and the wider audience. Here, Friedman is content to collate the ideas of others. Let's flatly applaud this.

The only thing that Friedman brings to this conversation is the title. I have heard people use "flat" to discuss trends in their workplace, so that contribution is not useless. At other times, unfortunately, Friedman's writing is too hackneyed. His discussion of the "flatteners," which conveniently add up to ten, seemed especially contrived. Friedman talks about the future as often as he does the recent past in this "Brief History of the Twenty-First Century," and when speculating about the future these flattener trends are taking us to, Friedman's writing takes on the tone of a Ayn Rand style prophecy. I felt this prophetic voice compromised his integrity, but at other times it led to ludicrously flat prophetic writing, such as the "Great Sorting Out."

The least useful part of the book is the practical advice that Friedman offers Americans, developing countries, and corporations on how to thrive in the flat world. Just visit the Rand Foundation's website. Beyond the obvious enthusiasm for deregulation (this book was written before the banks collapsed), the advice is usually not very practical at all. Friedman is just vague enough to speak to anyone and once again I found that his writing gave off a whiff of the astrologer's incense and crystal ball. It was almost as though Friedman wrote The World is Flat as an advertisement for corporate speaking engagements.

Still, the title is very good.

The "flat world" poses a problem for anyone looking to have value in a market where the supply of human capital has never been higher. Ultimately, I found myself primarily thinking of a more thoughtful reading list that I might construct around the flat world.

This book came out when I had already covered Silicon Valley as a journalist and author for several years. He states his thesis in the intro, which struck me as rather obvious.

Learned nothing from the rest of his book. In fact, saw a great deal of plagiarism from other books I'd read and authors I know. That's Friedman's reputation. He comes out a year late with his ideas, which he has borrowed from many others already.

Then he'd go on TV and talk to the clueless Charlie Rose