Explore the lost worlds in the Flat World of Thomas Friedman

Submitted by Ray Tapajna (United States), Dec 4, 2006 at 23:09

Thomas Friedman has a way with words. He can take the obvious and switch it to something else like he does with implying a level playing field in his imaginary " flatteners ". This is what he calls periods in history that paved the way for Globalization and Free Trade. Not only are the " flatteners" make believe but he trys to make it look like Globalization and Free Trade evolved in a natural economic way and he implys the level playing field will evolve too. However, the phrase level playing field has been used in Free Trade debates as allowing all players the same equal opportunity to succeed. This is certainly not the case.

However, Globalization and Free Trade are old hat already with a long history of failures in almost every way possible. Actually, the U.S. Government itself sponsored the moving of factories outside the USA ( this is what Free Trade is all about in our times and not the trading of products per se ) starting in 1956 and this evolved into so called Free Trade. By 1992 prior to the passing of NAFTA and GATT trade agreements, more than 2,000 factories were already moved to Mexico primarily under the Maquiladora factory program. NAFTA and GATT just confirmed what was going on for a very long time and speeded up the process radically. After NAFTA was passed, the number of factories moved to Mexico quickly doubled to 4,000. However, the Mexican workers refused to work at jobs paying only a $1 an hour and flooded to the USA seeking better jobs. Now many of the factories are moving from Mexico to places like China for the sake of even cheaper labor while China also contracts workers outside their country for the sake of even cheaper labor. Most of South America is saying NO! to all this in a tidal wave of leftist Populism while the U.S. Government and Free Traders like Friedman remain mute about this real world of events.

The cost of labor is the core of Globalization and Free Trade and there is an endless pool of workers who compete on a Global Trading block for the same jobs. This is the real Flat World of Friedman and as much as he would like it to conform to his version of it, reciting all the high technology factors, the plain fact is that is it based on using impoverished destitute workers. Even if everyone in the world was provided a super high tech education and a computer, it would be meaningless as long as everyone is competing for the same jobs. Friedman also uses statistics that do not match up with the pass and he reverses cause and effect in many of his " flatteners " . The main " flattener" should be 1956 when the U.S. Government started the ball rolling. Friedman ignores this and the fact workers have no voice in the process and history tells us what happens when this happens. And the ultimate weapons can flatten everything.

For more information, - Explore the lost worlds in the Flat World of Friedman by Ray Tapajna, artist and editor of Tapart News and Art that Talks at http://tapsearch.com/flatworld http://tapsearch.com/tapartnews/ http://tapsearch.com/flipflatworld/ http://tapsearch/com/tradetraps/ http://www.experiencedesignernetwork.com/archives/000636.html

Search under any of these names for real experts in the field of Globalization and Free Trade: Manuel Castell, Sir James Goldsmith , The Trap, ( he did the walk before he talked and wrote his book), Chuck Harder -For the People radio, Dr. Pat Choate ( VP running mate of Perot ) , Rep Marcy Kaptur who was asked by Perot to be his VP running mate) Cliff Barney , writer - ref.: Upside Magazine and of course there is Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs. These experts are real American heroes.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".