"The World Is Flat"

[Casawi]

What do you think?
I just started listening to audio version of the book, so far it is great. Looking at things from a different angle with positive attitude.

 

[dug777]

No sir.

I note that the title is somewhat misleading, however.

 

[FoBoT]

i have read Flatland

http://books.google.com/books?...print&ct=title#PPP1,M1

 

[bigrash]

I read it when it first came out. Very interesting book and I liked it a lot.

 

[Lorax]

that lady from The View definitely has.

 

[Fritzo]

I've read "The Chest is Flat", the biography of your girlfriend.



SAaaaaaaaaaa-LAM!!!!!!




JK man

 

[athithi]

Yes. Pretty good book...fairly light reading considering the scope of the subject. But then again, he is a 3-time Pulitzer winner, so what would I know

It did seem like a bit of cheerleading for some unpopular aspects of globalization. Personally, I don't entirely agree that globalization is fait accompli and a lot of Friedman's observations seem to be fenced in with that assumption. That aside, I really enjoyed reading the book and it did make me feel upbeat in general.

 

[George P Burdell]

It's lying on my bookshelf, waiting for me to reach for it.

 

[Casawi]

Originally posted by: athithi
Yes. Pretty good book...fairly light reading considering the scope of the subject. But then again, he is a 3-time Pulitzer winner, so what would I know

It did seem like a bit of cheerleading for some unpopular aspects of globalization. Personally, I don't entirely agree that globalization is fait accompli and a lot of Friedman's observations seem to be fenced in with that assumption. That aside, I really enjoyed reading the book and it did make me feel upbeat in general.

Is the agreement for out sourcing work to India or China in USD or some other currency. If it is in USD than dollar exchange rate going down is a good thing for America ??

 

[randomlinh]

I liked it, it was a good read

 

[Mucho]

I hated it! To me it was just Pro Globalization propaganda.

 

[AccruedExpenditure]

Yes I've read it. Pretty basic stuff but a great introductory read nonetheless.

 

[athithi]

Originally posted by: Casawi

Originally posted by: athithi
Yes. Pretty good book...fairly light reading considering the scope of the subject. But then again, he is a 3-time Pulitzer winner, so what would I know

It did seem like a bit of cheerleading for some unpopular aspects of globalization. Personally, I don't entirely agree that globalization is fait accompli and a lot of Friedman's observations seem to be fenced in with that assumption. That aside, I really enjoyed reading the book and it did make me feel upbeat in general.

Is the agreement for out sourcing work to India or China in USD or some other currency. If it is in USD than dollar exchange rate going down is a good thing for America ??

I believe it is USD. I am no expert on economics, but I suppose with the USD going down, US companies would be able to afford fewer services from India and Indian companies would get fewer rupees for services provided - that is, outsourced work could eventually become more expensive. I don't think it will become expensive enough that the comparative advantage will be lost, though.

 

[Casawi]

Originally posted by: athithi

Originally posted by: Casawi

Originally posted by: athithi
Yes. Pretty good book...fairly light reading considering the scope of the subject. But then again, he is a 3-time Pulitzer winner, so what would I know

It did seem like a bit of cheerleading for some unpopular aspects of globalization. Personally, I don't entirely agree that globalization is fait accompli and a lot of Friedman's observations seem to be fenced in with that assumption. That aside, I really enjoyed reading the book and it did make me feel upbeat in general.

Is the agreement for out sourcing work to India or China in USD or some other currency. If it is in USD than dollar exchange rate going down is a good thing for America ??

I believe it is USD. I am no expert on economics, but I suppose with the USD going down, US companies would be able to afford fewer services from India and Indian companies would get fewer rupees for services provided - that is, outsourced work could eventually become more expensive. I don't think it will become expensive enough that the comparative advantage will be lost, though.

Good point !

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Mucho
I hated it! To me it was just Pro Globalization propaganda.

He said as he posted on a computer made largely of foreign components, bought at a low price thanks to the many benefits of free trade.
It may hurt a little in the present, but in the long run, everyone benefits from trade, as it allows for efficient utilization of resources.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Mucho
I hated it! To me it was just Pro Globalization propaganda.

He said as he posted on a computer made largely of foreign components, bought at a low price thanks to the many benefits of free trade.
It may hurt a little in the present, but in the long run, everyone benefits from trade, as it allows for efficient utilization of resources.

No no no the Chinese and Indian working classes shouldn't be allowed jobs, the developing nations shouldn't be allowed to develop... the capitalist agenda to eliminate global inequality through free trade is evil... can't you see?

 

[sohcrates]

i really enjoyed this book.

i thought it was interesting that he noted that we layed all the fiber to india during the dot com boom, and then it was bought after the bust for pennies on the dollar and basically is one of the main reasons everything can be outsourced now. interesting viewpoints.

it's all true though. anyone starting / maintaining a business in todays world needs to think globally or die basically.

 

[IGBT]

..the flat earth was a popular scientific "consensus" just a few hundred years ago.

 

[Davegod75]

I bought it because it was supposed to be good and it was a bestseller. However, I could only get through 2 chapters because it is all so obvious. The guy has no new or revolutionary ideas. If have haven't been under a rock for the past 10 years you don't need to read it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..the flat earth was a popular scientific "consensus" just a few hundred years ago.

No, it wasn't. That's a myth. Greek scientists had proved that the earth was spherical by 300 BC and accurately measured it by 200 BC. Science did continue to accept Aristotle's theory of a geo-centric universe until the time of Galileo, but that was mostly because they lacked the adequate instruments (telescope) for it to be proven otherwise.
Rest assured though, when Columbus left Spain searching for a faster route to the Indies in 1492, he and science already knew for absolute certainty that the earth was round. Hell, at sea, the horizon is only 3 miles away. One can see the curvature of the earth quite easily. Plus, the stars are in different positions in the sky depending on how far north or south one is sailing, which is definitive proof of a spherical earth, and sailors have used the stars for navigation for millenia...

 

[Mucho]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Mucho
I hated it! To me it was just Pro Globalization propaganda.

He said as he posted on a computer made largely of foreign components, bought at a low price thanks to the many benefits of free trade.
It may hurt a little in the present, but in the long run, everyone benefits from trade, as it allows for efficient utilization of resources.

Most poor countries, however, have not enjoyed much benefit from globalization.

The ideologies and rules of economic globalization -- including free trade, deregulation, privatization, and structural adjustment -- have destroyed the livelihoods of millions of people

Text

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mucho

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Mucho
I hated it! To me it was just Pro Globalization propaganda.

He said as he posted on a computer made largely of foreign components, bought at a low price thanks to the many benefits of free trade.
It may hurt a little in the present, but in the long run, everyone benefits from trade, as it allows for efficient utilization of resources.

Most poor countries, however, have not enjoyed much benefit from globalization.

The ideologies and rules of economic globalization -- including free trade, deregulation, privatization, and structural adjustment -- have destroyed the livelihoods of millions of people

Text

Yeah, tell that to the Chinese. :roll:

Inequality is a ridiculously poor way to measure economic advancement. It is, ironically, a way of pointing to extremes in order to ignore the average. In other words, just because we were more equal when we all lived in mud huts does not mean that actual living conditions were better then. Likewise, just because advancement and development has benefited some more than others does not mean that everyone else has not benefited as well.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: IGBT
..the flat earth was a popular scientific "consensus" just a few hundred years ago.

No, it wasn't. That's a myth. Greek scientists had proved that the earth was spherical by 300 BC and accurately measured it by 200 BC. Science did continue to accept Aristotle's theory of a geo-centric universe until the time of Galileo, but that was mostly because they lacked the adequate instruments (telescope) for it to be proven otherwise.
Rest assured though, when Columbus left Spain searching for a faster route to the Indies in 1492, he and science already knew for absolute certainty that the earth was round. Hell, at sea, the horizon is only 3 miles away. One can see the curvature of the earth quite easily. Plus, the stars are in different positions in the sky depending on how far north or south one is sailing, which is definitive proof of a spherical earth, and sailors have used the stars for navigation for millenia...

..go look at archived maps of the era. All indicated a "flat" earth. some knew otherwise but fought a "consensus" of pop culture scientists who believed otherwise.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: IGBT
..the flat earth was a popular scientific "consensus" just a few hundred years ago.

No, it wasn't. That's a myth. Greek scientists had proved that the earth was spherical by 300 BC and accurately measured it by 200 BC. Science did continue to accept Aristotle's theory of a geo-centric universe until the time of Galileo, but that was mostly because they lacked the adequate instruments (telescope) for it to be proven otherwise.
Rest assured though, when Columbus left Spain searching for a faster route to the Indies in 1492, he and science already knew for absolute certainty that the earth was round. Hell, at sea, the horizon is only 3 miles away. One can see the curvature of the earth quite easily. Plus, the stars are in different positions in the sky depending on how far north or south one is sailing, which is definitive proof of a spherical earth, and sailors have used the stars for navigation for millenia...

..go look at archived maps of the era. All indicated a "flat" earth. some knew otherwise but fought a "consensus" of pop culture scientists who believed otherwise.

What era are you referring to? Magellan's ships had successfully circumnavigated the earth less than 30 years after Columbus found America. And Mercator developed his method of projecting a spherical earth onto a flat surface scarcely a generation after that.
Your comment that "some knew otherwise but fought a 'consensus' of pop culture scientists who believed otherwise" is a crock of sh!t on so many levels, I'm not even sure how to address it. First, "pop culture scientists" didn't exist in those times. Science at the time was scarcely a tiny fringe of fortune-telling astrologers and alchemists ("medicine" consisted of mercury poisoning, leaching, and blood-letting, and "doctors" usually did double duty as barbers), was almost completely impotent in society, and was what the Church tolerated it to be. And Church dogma had held since the 8th century that Aristotle and his spherical earth in a geo-centric universe was the correct view. So if there was any consensus, it was that dictated by the Church. Second, the entire notion that people in Columbus' day thought the earth was flat was a fiction created by Washington Irving in his romantic history book about Columbus. It is complete nonsense, discredited as fiction the day it was published in the 1820s, despite what ignorant/romantic schoolteachers might still teach children (a practice which itself came into existence as a way of discrediting creationists post-Darwin, so look at you, eh?).

I will guarantee you right now that you will NOT find a single credible scientific mention of a flat earth later than the 8th century. So please, STFU. I usually ignore the constant tripe you spout, but historical revisionism is a pet peeve of mine, and I'm not going to let this one go.

 

[Dubb]

Originally posted by: Davegod75
I bought it because it was supposed to be good and it was a bestseller. However, I could only get through 2 chapters because it is all so obvious. The guy has no new or revolutionary ideas. If have haven't been under a rock for the past 10 years you don't need to read it.

This is kind of what I was thinking...This would have been an amazing book had it come 10 years earlier.