I don't find myself reading Mr. Friedman's column that much. I've read some of his books, including "The Lexus and the Olive Tree", his basic primer on globalization. The biggest weakness in all his work is his tendency to base many of his assertions on circumstantial evidence that can be easily manipulated to back up any given viewpoint. He's a good writer, but a few opinions on the street about globalization or job growth alone can't be considered well thought out academic work. His work isn't all that critical of prevailing trends; rather he just tends to go with the flow, writing nice script that reflects popular opinion at the time. Friedman in his book claimed just a few months before Enron's collapse that it was a "strong global company with the world's best interests at heart". Generally, his opinions seem to reflect those of the Democratic Leadership Council and other moderate Democrat groups who are trying to redefine the party away from their traditional backing from labor.

Globalization is a reality; the world is indeed getting smaller with the rise of the rapid or instant communication. But he tends to gloss over some of the conflict which globalization causes, or some of its more negative outcomes, such as the homogenization of cultures throughout the world and corporate practices that are just downright exploitative. In a way, globalization is opening up markets and creating diversity, but in doing so, the operation of localities and cultures are being shaken up by trends that are foreign to their development and history.

Globalization can be "pushy" at times. That's in part why there is so much tension in the world, especially in the Middle East, where traditional societies are getting transformed by globalization, many times with difficulty. Friedman at times seems dismissive of such things as being anti-progressive. But it isn't that simple: transnational corporations that operate without proper regulation internationally can operate outside the scope of the law, especially in emerging markets with weak legal systems. Nigeria immediately comes to mind, where Shell operates refineries without consideration for the local economy and its people. Then you have other companies like Halliburton that have profited off preferential government contracts that have been made at the expense of other contractors that can do things much more efficiently if the market would be truly open. I am hardly anti-corporation, but it is clear that globalization cannot continue to operate using an industrial era business model. Globalization can open new consumer markets, but the process will defeat itself if monopolistic business practices stymie that development. You need a legitimate free market to spread capital. The situation simply isn't as rosy as Friedman claims; indeed, he is very simplistic in the way he put forth his ideas.

It is difficult to properly evaluate America's most influential and wealthiest pundit (Tom Friedman became a billionaire the hard way-by marrying a New York heiress). Reading Friedman's columns (Favorites: We need to be more brutal in Iraq, What we really need is more Globalisation, $10 oil will solve all the Mid-East's problems; Tony Blair for president!...) is the intellectual equivalent of a root canal; it leaves one too traumatized and disoriented to think straight. Bill Bonner is made of stronger stuff than I: "[Friedman] refreshes our faith in our fellow men; they are not evil, just mindless. We have never met the man, but we imagine Friedman as a high school teacher, warping young minds with drippy thoughts. But to say his ideas are sophomoric or juvenile merely libels young people, most of whom have far more cleverly nuanced opinions than the columnist. You might criticize the man by saying his work is without merit, but too that would be flattery. His work has negative merit. Every column subtracts from the sum of human knowledge in the way a broken pipe drains the town's water tower...."-Bill Bonner

Wish I could require the Bush administration to read Tom Friedman every week instead of limiting themselves to The Weekly Standard!