"The World Is Flat" by Thomas L. Friedman . This book is about how the computer world is emerging and what causes make people's to communicate in flat monitor and how they connected before and after twenty-first century. The author explained with detail history of how the round world is turned into flat world . some of the aspects for flatter world is outsourcing, offshoring, windows pc, netscape internet, workflow software,e.t.c. I liked this book , I recommend this book to those who interested to know about computer rise and its significance .

Started this book over a year ago and just finished it today. How many times does Friedman have to say "the world is flat" for us to get it? I've never read a book with so many anecdotal and innocuous stories just to prove that the title is far from misnomer.

Most of the content in this book just seemed like common sense after reviewing modern econ theories and histories. This resulted in skimming about 1/4 of the book, mainly the stories that repeatedly resulted in "Hey guess what, here is yet more proof that the world is flat"

I can't bash the whole book though.

While the story of globalization presented by Friedman is about 300 pages too long, it does contain some great advice on how America can change its policies to better enhance innovation among its future workforce. Information about the perfect storm facing the American workforce was intriguing and alarming. Stories of how less developed countries can harness our new world were encouraging.

Great for someone unfamiliar with modern economic theories and initially bitter to globalization. If you've read anything on modern global trends and economic principles released in the last 3 years, this book is not worth the price tag. Also, if you are familiar with "The internets" you probably have already figured out most of what Friedman is talking about.

I'm sure the stories presented in this book were revolutionary a few years ago... but apparently in a flat world books about globalization go out of date rather quickly.

Non-Fiction. Friedman explains to us, over and over, how globalization has effectively turned the world into a very very small place -- I was okay with his metaphor of a flat world at first, but over time it started to irritate me. It's neither elegant nor practical. No matter how many virtual conference rooms you have, in a flat world it's still going to take forever to get material goods moved from China to the US, unlike our current round model; later he even starts to talk about how some parts of the world are unflat, ow, my head -- but still, his point remains: digitization, miniaturization, virtualization, and personalization have conspired to make our planet very small indeed, metaphorically speaking. For the most part, Friedman has a highly romanticized view of globalization, looking at it as more of a fascinating academic theory than a real force, and only talking to people who have benefited from the rampant outsourcing and supply-chaining.

The first two thirds of this book suffer from a distinct lack of real world consequence. It's all happy anecdotes and economic theory, which isn't exactly Friedman's strong point. Because of this, it took me about six months to read, was constantly inspiring me to nap, and was just generally twice as long as it needed to be. Friedman makes up a lot of jargon -- going as far as to repurpose common words for his own oblique purposes -- and it can be difficult to remember what he's talking about at any given moment. The other problem is Friedman's scope and focus. When I read non-fiction, I like each chapter to have a thesis. Friedman prefers to wander up and down the page, make the same point several times, dump a lot of irrelevant statistics on me, and then scurry off to deliver a glancing blow to a new perspective, only to doggedly return to his original thrice-made point as if I hadn't gotten it the first two times.

But, if you can make it through all that, cold hard reality shows up in the third act and things finally get interesting. Friedman admits that only .2% of Indians are employed in the technological industry he was so happily touting just a few chapters before. He admits that the world is not entirely flat, and that it may never become fully flat due to poverty, war, or simple fear. He talks about the ramifications of a flat world, the ways it can go wrong, how terrorist networks take advantage of the same readily available work force and supply chain that Dell or Infosys does. He takes the first two thirds of the book and puts it into context. This part I read in just three days. This is the part I can use. Globalization isn't just about Americans losing jobs. It's so much bigger than that. It's about the flow of information, about vulnerability and anger, about global responsibility. Those last hundred and fifty pages were worth struggling through the first three hundred, but only highlight how The World is Flat is more mishmash than structured thesis.

This gets two stars for the first two-thirds of the book and four stars for the last third, giving it an average of three stars.

Holy sh... this book went on and on. And on. The world is flat, oh yes! I see! But how flat is the world again, Mr. Friedman? Tell me once again, exactly how flat is it? Really flat? You don't say!

Maybe it's just me being a grad student for too long, but I prefer my nonfiction books to have a list of references. Perhaps a footnote or two. But this book is just a series of anecdotes with some jargon thrown in (Bangalore...curiosity quotient...flatteners...in-forming...Bangalore...compassionate flatism...glocalization...Bangalore).

But that's apparently what he intended. If you made it to page 629 in the 2006 version (bonus flatness!), you might have noticed that Friedman approvingly quotes Stanley Fischer as saying that "one good example is worth a thousand theories." Uh, what? That doesn't make any sense. Freidman thinks so, though; this book is a thousand good examples that add up to a few coherent theories.

Maybe the topic of globalization is just too broad to write concisely about, or maybe Friedman was looking at way too many trees rather than seeing the forest. But this book annoyed the hell out of me, and it only got worse as it went on.

Not to say I wouldn't recommend it. I mean, read chapters 1-4, then just pick and choose what interests you in the middle, and then read 15-17 because those actually say something new. The book thoroughly covers globalization and the business world, and America's place in the new economy. It covers a lot of ground. And mostly, the ideas are great and well-founded.

I did get a little squeamish at times, when Friedman's advocacy of free trade borders on trickle-down meritocratic patriotic Republicanisms. (See p. 496: "The inspirational power of a local business success story is incalculable: There is no greater motivator for the poor than looking at one of their own who makes it big and saying: "If she can do it, I can do it.'") But his heart is in the right place, I think. (See p. 265: "...a policy of free trade, while necessary, is not enough by itself. It must be accompanied by a focused domestic strategy aimed at upgrading the education of every American, so that he or she will be able to compete for the new jobs in a flat world.") I can agree with that.

But really, if you're under 30 you need to read this book like you need a hole in the head. You've been living it. Go read a blog.

This book does a good job of describing cataclysmic moments in recent history and how they have democratized everything from news delivery, employment and technology. The author combines interesting corporate tales with anecdotes to keep this tome from being a laborious read.

The premise is that due in large part to technology the world is becoming flatter.  Thomas Friedman clearly thinks this is a great thing with very few drawbacks. In fact, he doesn't address any drawback except in passing (other than the random aside that terrorists can use the Internet to network too) until the penultimate chapter.

This is clearly meant to be a book about how globalization affects the individual. Friedman tries to show this by sharing anecdotes and interviews but nearly every single person he talks to and every story he shares is about a founder or head of a company and the few that aren't deal with people who are no more than 3 levels from the top of the company. Hardly "everyman." The book has a lot to say about what CEOs and entrepreneurs can do to stay competitive (mainly keep innovating, not exactly a new idea) but there is very little about what the rest of us can do besides "continue to try to make ourselves employable."

He proposes that companies make sure their employees are employable and in return employees give their loyalty. This seems unrealistic given today’s business climate.

He views the Internet as a great leveling force, but mentions the censorship in China only in passing and doesn’t discuss how it affects his theory. I believe he thinks the situation is temporary but as major companies seem happy to cooperate with filtering, I don't see change in the near future.

Friedman is also very big on the idea of globalization as an economic equalizer. He goes on at length about how it's a force for good because it dramatically raises the standard of living in developing nations, particularly India, but it isn't until the penultimate chapter that he admits that's only true for about 2% of India's population. And while he's busy talking about what a great opportunity it is in terms of income and how Indians no longer have to emigrate to have a much improved standard of living and that even those abroad can have access to hometown newspapers ,etc. he doesn't seem to realize the contradiction when he mentions a man who started an elementary school for India's Untouchable class, hoping to prove that with the right education they can be just like the higher castes but who then must to move elsewhere after they are educated because their last name reveals their caste. While he was trying to argue that the Internet will eventually bring more income equality it seemed to me that it made the rich richer and the poor were still left behind. (And never a word about the exponential difference between CEOs and the lowest paid employee). It’s good that high caste Indians have a better standard of living but we're still seeing the standards improve for the people at the top and not much change for everyone else.

He talks about Wal-Mart’s "just in time" model of business and in his penultimate chapter he does address some of the problems. A global supply chain can be decimated by war, disease, or natural disaster and if things are only delivered "just in time" companies can be completely screwed. The advantage of this is that it makes countries think twice about going to war (specifically countries like India/Pakistan and China/Taiwan) because they know if they screw up the global supply chain companies will be extremely wary of ever investing in that country again. But Friedman extols the virtues of Wal-Mart's use of RFID technology without mentioning the concerns of privacy advocates.

I think one of Friedman's biggest failings is that so much of the book is about the Internet as a great equalizer and there is not one word about Net Neutrality. The book was updated, revised and re released in April of 2006 so Net Neutrality was a known issue.

Having said all of that, the book was still an interesting read. I learned a lot of random things about various companies.

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.

Friedman, Thomas, (2005), The World is Flat, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, New York, NY. This is a best selling book about ten forces that have “flattened the world” and created a new global economy where entrepreneurs, established companies, and individuals will work together – and compete – to create value. The book also looks at implications for America and American citizens who must adapt to the new world order or face serious economic consequences.

This is an important book, I wanted to give it 5 stars but couldn't because it was so ineffectively written, where was the editor?? It had so many important ideas but they were lost in the never-ending, 635 pages full of anecdotes, personal friend's opinions and in general, just full of himself view. As if Friedman himself was somehow the center of globalization. The first 200 pages of the 10 flatteners, could have been done in 20.
That being said, he raised countless important arguments, things everyone today needs to be thinking very seriously about, which is why it made me so angry that he didn't do it in half the pages with much less self indulgence. Although this edition is from 2007, it is hopelessly outdated on the technology front, but advances since then actually makes most of his conclusions more insightful and valuable. For example his predictions of technology becoming ever more personal, mobile and virtual based on the Palm Pilots of the day, and of people becoming ever more addicted to their technology, have truly been borne out in the age of iPhones.
Where he really dares to take a stand, and where again his predictive power is almost uncanny, is the Arab-Muslim world, its relationship to globalization and the future of terrorism. Skipping all pretence of being politically correct, he goes right to the point: the authoritarian Arab regimes and Islam itself, are wired against the openness, tolerance and collaboration required for reaping the benefits of globalization. The frustration and profound humilation young Arab Muslims feel at the fact that now everyone in the world can see where everyone stands vis-a-vis others and specifically, can now see how backwards the most repressive Arab countries are. Young Arab men and women, can simply not have the freedom of thought, expression and opportunity that many others enjoy. This creates a massive cognitive dissonance with their belief in having a superior religion and a grand past: how can a country they once ruled (Spain) today have a larger GDP than all 22 Arab states combined? The problem is that they want the the power that free inquiry confers, without the free inquiry, they want neither to abandon their religion nor remain forever in the rear of human technical advance. Intractable dilemnas breed anger and lashing out, some in the form of terrorism. Friedman correctly points out that terriorism is spawned by the poverty of dignity, not the poverty of money, the humiliation is the key.
I also really appreciated the parenting part, how to raise kids in an ever more competitive, global world. Only 4 pages long, this is important stuff. "There comes a time when you've got to put away the Game Boys, turn off the television, shut off the iPod, and get your kids down to work" Referring to the growing cancer in America of entitlement, that delayed gratification is an unacceptable punishment, that our kids should face nothing bad or disappointing or stressful, he lays blame squarely where it belongs: parents. Education is not just about cognitive skills, it is about building character. Finally, he strongly argues how the weak, damaging political U.S. leadership post-9/11, has never quite called upon the nation to make a sacrifice for something important, be it kid's education or inventing the future through science and technology, especially of the green kind to face one of the main challenges of globalization: tens of millions of new middle class members wanted a car, a frig and an air conditioner. This is not a test. Only one planet. As an American who left the States before 9/11, I also appreciated one of his final points: As much as Eurpeans and others laugh at Americans for their optimism and naivety, the truth is the world needs what America exports: hope, not fear; dreams not memories. May it remain optimist and naive!
Lots to think about, a real thought provoker...

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.

It is quite true in his explanation that the world is increasingly smaller than it has ever been due to the development of the Internet and the digital world. I like his style of writing though sometimes it is not really concise. But other than that, this book is easy to follow.

In my perspective, the world could never be entirely flat or even if it could be flat, this scenario could not happen during this century. In fact, war, poverty, political view or even culture clash plays a big role against this process of flattening. As I moved along these pages, the only thing I could notice is that Friedman continually tried to describe the process of flattening but he seemed to ignore that there could be a real force that could resist to this change - human. There are many people who are trying to "de-flatten" this world, making each of us, each country tends to be more different and diverse rather than to be so similar and as flat as it could be.

It was one of the best books I read. Although i disagree with some of the content, the book displays history of the past 20 years in a wonderful way. It also reveals the comprehensive meaning, te pros and cons of globalization and is impact on business, politics, individuals, terrorism, .... I learned a lot from this book , it gave me some ideas to implement in my work.