Spiky

he issue that is raised by the author is regarding the negative effects of technology. These advances in technology have not leveled the world as is thought by Friedman, but have led to enormous spikes in productivity in certain areas while leaving the troughs devastatingly behind. Economic development in the world tends to be situated in a certain number of areas. Areas that lag in technological development are forgotten economically. The point of view this is looking at is in terms of economic and technological advancement. Another view to consider would be whether technological advances are desired in these areas. Does it make sense for advances to occur everywhere? Should there be natural areas that aren’t as technologically advanced? Do the citizens living in the troughs actually want to be on the same level as the spikes? I think this advancement is due mostly because of the spikes’ proximity to natural resources. When cities were first being formed inhabitants would settle close to areas with abundant natural resources. Those cities best equipped to survive flourished (i.e., New York, San Francisco, Bejing), while those that lacked the ability to prosper long-term did not. In addition, I think businesses are proficient at locating talent and resources and will exploit both to their utmost potential. My solution would be to encourage businesses to seek out these troughs and try to develop them. For example, General Electric developed a cell phone that would work in rural areas and is available for a relevant price point. These small advancements in technology will eventually help raise these troughs. I think overall, technology will make the world flatter as time passes, but at this point technology still remains relatively expensive, which makes it virtually inaccessible for many parts of the world. The first implication is that we may see companies competing to lower prices. Secondly, there may be a large influx of business to areas where labor is cheaper....