globalization has both advantages and disadvantages and this is why it is easy to find debates about globalization. The important point is to determine which outweighs the other one. My point of view on this issue is closer to Friedman’s perspective, but I don’t think Friedman was able to support his side effectively compared to Naim. Knowing that he is proficient enough to write two books about globalization and I would expect him to make stronger points and respond effectively to other side’s oppositions. For example, he says “Is that less important than say a daily protest in Hong Kong?” Is it that easy to undervalue thousands of people on Hong Kong streets and millions of other people who agree with them? He is as disregardful as a company owner who produces a high-tech product while wasting the environment with his factory’s chemical waste and says “Is my highly profitable high-tech product less important than, say, a daily protest of people who are living around my company?” Globalization is affecting countries dramatically and assimilating their cultures, identities, traditions and values. Actually, this is the point which I agree with Naim. If I offered him a better life style, would Friedman agree to erase and forget his memory? On the other hand, Naim claims that globalization cause global crimes to happen. But I guess he forgets that removing trade barriers doesn’t mean that they will let people with illegal drugs to enter their country. Maybe it can make it easier but it doesn’t mean that ending globalization will be a definite solution to protect those countries from drug dealers and other individuals that he was talking about.
2) Both Friedman and Dorgan made good points and actually I agree with most of those points. It is a fact that America ...