First of all, Friedman talks about the different levels of globalization. There are 3 different time periods in which the society has differed and changed, bringing us to where we are today. Globalization 1.0, which took place from 1492 to 1800, was the first step to making the world flatter. The coming to America, and the industrial drive that came along with this is what most characterized globalization 1.0. The industry drive was about things such as manpower and horsepower, and how well we could utilize these in the world market. This caused the world to “shrink” a little bit, and become flatter. With the discovery of a new world, it broadened the area in which business was conducted, but the commonality of rule and trade caused the distance to be spanned more frequently. I think Friedman’s notions regarding globalization 1.0 is very accurate. The world in our terms began in 1492 with the discovery of North America. Once the area began to be inhabited and settled, there was much more worldwide interaction. Communications and trade between the American colonies and England increased, and this began a more stable business of worldwide association. I believe that Friedman’s theory is true, because the discovery of a land across the ocean for the most part, instigated the flattening of the world. Although to some degree, there was already some degree of international relations, mostly in regards to trade. This is the area in which I think Friedman’s theory is slightly flawed. He
First of all, Friedman talks about the different levels of globalization. There are 3 different time periods in which the society has differed and changed, bringing us to where we are today. Globalization 1.0, which took place from 1492 to 1800, was the first step to making the world flatter. The coming to America, and the industrial drive that came along with this is what most characterized globalization 1.0. The industry drive was about things such as manpower and horsepower, and how well we could utilize these in the world market. This caused the world to “shrink” a little bit, and become flatter. With the discovery of a new world, it broadened the area in which business was conducted, but the commonality of rule and trade caused the distance to be spanned more frequently. I think Friedman’s notions regarding globalization 1.0 is very accurate. The world in our terms began in 1492 with the discovery of North America. Once the area began to be inhabited and settled, there was much more worldwide interaction. Communications and trade between the American colonies and England increased, and this began a more stable business of worldwide association. I believe that Friedman’s theory is true, because the discovery of a land across the ocean for the most part, instigated the flattening of the world. Although to some degree, there was already some degree of international relations, mostly in regards to trade. This is the area in which I think Friedman’s theory is slightly flawed. He