Something that really piqued my interest this week was a reading, specifically Thomas Friedman and his article about how the world is flat. That really is an interesting way to look at globalization, one that I can agree with in some ways and disagree in others. Our world has become somewhat streamlined, and certain things are easier to access than ever before.  Our world has become streamlined  especially in the realm of global commerce and global economy. There are many areas of the world that greatly benefit from this sort of thing. Countries like the United States, Canada, and China, just to name a few, are able to seamlessly trade and transfer capital in the blink of an eye. Thus, Thomas Friedman has made the claim that the world is flat. Certain economies are benefitting, but what are the implications for those countries dealing with severe economic disparities? Pankaj Ghemawat challenged Friedman and his argument about the world being flat in his article "Why the World Isn't Flat". This is also where I start to disagree with Friedman. Although certain areas of the world are thriving in many different ways, others are struggling. Friedman only took into account the global superpowers of this world and left out all else. The world is not as globalized as it seems, and to assume the world is flat from merely an eeconomic standpoint leaves much to be discussed. What causes these disparities in ease of access to resources, how are some countries more globalized than others, and how can one talk about globalization without including every aspect of our globe? These are just a few questions that I would like to learn more about in the coming weeks, and hopefully we can all come to a consensus on a globalized world that benefits all.