Spiky or Flat?

All of the readings regarding the economy, politics, globalization, and technology (as well as other various topics) acted in almost a mental battle royale as to the current situation of the global community. I found the arguments very interesting to read when contrasted against one another. Friedman's "The World is Flat," seemed more of an optimistic look at the current and future economic situation. I'm entirely an optimist, or at least I try to be, but I can't help to be influenced by reality creeping in. Friedman's idea that the economic capabilities and potential of regions all over the globe are catching up to one another. He uses the argument that expanding technology and "connectedness" are helping to lessen the gaps between the have's and have not's of the global community. I found Ghemawat's and Florida's rebuttals to be unfortunately, but realisitically more along the lines of truth. Although the internet is becoming more widespread, people often don't reach out and connect with people from other countries and instead stay connected within their neighborhood or country. In addition, those being connected and those becoming economically successful are places that are very few but far between. Many countries still have restrictions on internet access or are so intrenched in problems like Malaria, AIDS, starvation, and pollution that technology and becoming a world economic power is far from reach or seemingly lifetimes away. In "The World is Spiky," Florida contends that the areas of high economic productivity and innovation may be spread out across the map but are concentrated in small areas, more specifically in the West. As these cities and regions become more successful and advance, it increases the gap and leaves the vast majority of regions in their economic dust.