Assignment 5

Justin Olsen

IST 1100

Module 3

The triple convergence is the way that the ten flatterers converged to create a flatter global playing field. Convergence I describes the initial creation of a playing field connected by the internet and the fall of the Berlin Wall. This convergence allowed collaborations on a level that had never been seen before. Distance, time, and to some extent language were removed from the equation. Convergence II describes how companies do not make the entire product anymore. Instead they specialize in one particular field and collaborate with other companies to make the finished product. Friedman calls this "horizontalization". Convergence III describes how China, India, and several other countries have had economic and political shifts that recently allowed their large population the ability to compete and collaborate in the global market. This brought several people with a strong work ethic into the work force. All of this is important because it summarizes the main idea of the past few chapters. Globalization is here to stay and it will have long lasting implications for years to come. In the India and Indiana case I think that both sides are exploiting each other.  At the start it was Indiana going to India for cheap labor. Unfortunately for Indiana closed minded politicians do not like irony. At the end it was India who got the most profit out of the situation. Indiana was out a million dollars and India got a million dollars and 43 fully trained employees. So I suppose it depends on who you ask. Everyone was sort of exploited in this situation. Intellectual properties are any creations of the mind. This is important because the question is raised of who owns a creation of the mind. Several companies have rules that give them the ownership of any idea made by an employee. As a capitalist this makes sense. Someone you pay to have ideas gives you the rights to those ideas. On the other hand, I am an internet user. One major belief of several internet users is the idea that information wants to be free. Should something as immaterial as an idea belong to anyone? I think that ideas should belong to everyone but, merchandising belongs to whoever made the idea in the first place.