The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century Paperback – July 24, 2007

No doubt, Friedman will get you thinking.

You may end up thinking Friedman has really informed you on what this grand notion of "globalization" is all about. His book has reached millions, including leaders in business government and education, many who now feel fully informed on the subject.

But, just stop to consider his "base assumptions," the 10 so-called flatteners. Most aren't new at all and some fundamental flatteners such as containerized shipping aren't mentioned at all (see The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger). (nevermind the consequences when the end of cheap eneregy flattens the global logistics routes)

So, go ahead and read this book, but when you are finished, and especially if you are awed, I'd suggest you consider reading Aronica and Ramdoo's critical analysis of Friedman's book. It just could make you "think again," even about those so-called 10 flatteners.

The World Is Flat?: A Critical Analysis of New York Times Bestseller by Thomas Friedman

Aronica and Ramdoo will also point you to the true thought leaders on globalization, and summarize their take on Friedman's book: Stiglitz (Nobel Prize in economics), Baghwati(Columbia Professor), Prestowitz (Presidential Trade Advisor), Lemer (UCLA Professor), Ghemawat (Harvard Professor), Roach (Chief Economist at Morgan Stanley), Palast (Investigative Reporter, UK)and others.

So, thank Friedman for an entertaining read, and using his status as a celebrity pundit for making us all aware of the great reorganization the world is going through. But, please don't stop there, for there is far more to the unfolding story of globalization, and all of us are being affected.

While Friedman offers an interesting timeline of technological history. He is beyond redundant in his writing. I wish I had kept count of how many times he wrote, "the world is flattening" or "the playing field is being leveled." Thank you I got the point the first 37 times. Essentially, if he had condensed the book and stopped repeating himself, it would have made for a much more interesting read. Also, I find that the book was written for those who did not grow up during the 90s, as most of what he writes about is common knowledge for those in their 20s and 30s.

I am surprised by how many reviewers described this book as "well written." I found it extremely wordy. The content to word ratio here is extremely low. The ideas in this book could have (and should have) been expressed in 150 pages or less. Instead Friedman drones on for close to 600 pages. The extreme length would have been justified if the book had gone into detail about certain topics or provided more rigorous analysis of different points of view. Instead its 600 pages of high level fluff. Does anyone really need a 600 page tome to tell them we are doing a lot of business with India? Is making a point concisely a lost art? Was Friedman paid by the word? Can I find an Indian gentleman to write me an executive summary of this leviathan?

I have lost count of how many times professors at my university recommended I read this book. Everyone I had spoken to who'd read it marveled at how enlightening it was.
I have to disagree. Although there were interesting concepts illuminated in this book, whenever Friedman would explore a concept I was familiar with, he would do so with incredible oversimplification and sometimes even gross inaccuracy. Others have described this book as well-written. While Friedman seems to be a competent writer, he also seems to use derivatives of the word "flat" as many times as he can find excuse for. He may have been trying to coin a new catch phrase of some sort but ultimately it was very frustrating that you cannot read four lines with the word, "flat", "flatten", "flattener" (not a real word?), or "flattening".
Skim this book to find interesting topics, read other books for actual information.

I picked up this book without reading any reviews on it hoping that I would get a neutral view and take on the phenomena of globalization. Now I wish I hadn't and I really wish Thomas Friedman hadn't "expanded and updated" the book - twice.

As I wanted to read a neutral book, I will give as neutral a review as possible.

His writing is engrossing, no doubt, and he makes very solid (while very obvious) points about what, who, and how globalization came to be and continues to advance. Within the first 300 pages or so, I really didn't take away anything new except a few of his personal delightful stories to use as examples of his points.

And then . . . came in the non-neutrality. He began making statements about Bush and other things that just leave a bad taste your mouth. Within the rest of the context of the book it seemed like he really didn't have to go into political scuttlebut. Typically it seems journalists have more credibility when they do not do as he did. Also, he points out some examples of (obvious) problems, but lots of his suggested solutions seem unrealistic; which is probably why I have still yet to see any of them come to be used. Some suggestions and prose were good, but the bad outweighed them.

Many times I found myself reading the same points over and over again in the same section. It seemed to me that he would grind many of them in so much and really drag on many of the chapters or sections that did not need to be as long to get the point across. An example of this (and I don't have the book right in front of me to point out the page numbers) is when he even uses the same word over 12 times in 2 1/2 pages to describe something. Not very flattering and it made the sentence structure hard to follow through.

At one point he uses Ireland as an example of the best country in a "reform retail" (a stage of economy used to boost economies in globalization) continuously refering to Ireland's economic stature to prove this. His 3.0 version was published in 2007. Ireland declared bankputcy in 2008 and was bailed out by the EU and IMF by 2010. I thought to myself "Really? You used Ireland as a prime example of what to do in a globalizing economy? If anything you should republish your book 4.0 and ommit a good portion of it." I was so profoundly moved by this rediculousness that I sent an email to him through the New York Times asking him his take on Irelands situation now . . . I have yet to receive a response.

Overall, his personal accounts about globalization are entertaining in a fun-fact sort of way, but his old news, horrid latter half of the book, and failure to really tie certain factors of globalization together overtake the rest of what he writes. Again, I think it would have been better off without the "3.0 expanded and updated" and he really should have left out obvious political innuendo.