Thomas Friedman’s book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, captures the theory of globalization. He relates the fight or emergence of globalization as one between a Lexus, which represents the modernization, industrialization, and technological advancement of the free world, and the Olive Tree, which represents the roots, heart, and tradition of a long-standing culture that dates back to the beginning of a country’s heritage. He argues that Globalization almost forces countries to choose one or the other in order to compete and survive in the new world after the Cold War. He states that the countries that succeed in this new era are ones that master the balancing act of Globalization.

Friedman argues that Capitalism is the only system that has worked and thus is the only system that will continue working. He sites the economist Joseph Schumpeter who described capitalism as “creative destruction”, basically attesting that the process in which the old ways of doing things are endogenously destroyed and replaced by the new.

However, Friedman did not go further into the explanation of Schumpter and his views that the success of capitalism leads to corporatism and a fostering of values that will be hostile to capitalism, thus creating its own demise and collapsing from within as restrictions upon entrepreneurship destroy the structure it created.

I argue that throughout history there has always been a pendulum swing and that capitalism and globalization will not always be here, but that it functions the best for the current times.

The internet is a tool created that has thrust forward the Globalization era, providing information faster and faster to consumers and the public. Anything and everything can be purchased and researched over the internet. The Golden Arches theory of Conflict Prevention concurs that every nation that has a McDonald’s does not make war with another, particularly because that country has reached a certain economic status and standard. Yet, he makes a valid point that the McDonald’s representation will create a problem if it interferes with the identity of a country when future generations think McDonald’s is actually a main part of its own culture, tradition, and history. I think if this does occur that is when the historical pendulum will swing and a new system will be created and people will want their historical Olives over the Lexus-driven system.

His theory of the Lexus and the Olive Tree is a great representation of how to survive in the Globalization system. The phrase which has been sung in a song by Alice Cooper and is now Star Jones new book title, “if you don’t stand for something you will fall for anything” serves as meaning for what our world might become if the world creates future generations and countries that succumb completely to the system but miss the balancing act of maintaining their real and lasting identity. The system is represented by people who write their own autobiographies and make millions so they can afford the Lexus while writing about their Olive Tree. That is the ironic twist of Globalization. Some of the things that capitalism and Globalization have fostered the way to surface seem obscene and the entrepreneurs that capitalize on it probably have enough money to buy their own country and call it “Globalization”.s

Globalization is both a blessing and curse. Thomas Friedman asserts that “the healthy society is one that can balance the Lexus and the Olive Tree all at the same time.” He states that America is the best model for this on the earth. This seems to be the right assessment; however I still love Europe due to the fact that that area of the world still seems to have maintained a lot of the olive trees while having a lot of the Lexus’s, and still manages to provide uniqueness to the world. America seems to have gotten Wal-Martized. Perhaps the curse of Globalization is the risk of losing what is really important, the identity and core which makes a system and/or country its own unique autonomic entity, and thinking the whole time that what is gained, material wealth and the comfort ability, is the most important thing. Friedman states this as the idea of reaching a point of “sameness”. The blessing of course if the opportunity and advancement that globalization affords one living in the “free” world, but then again I am the author of this article and was not born in a country where the word “opportunity” seems to be a distant foreign idea, one that might not exist for me in my lifetime. If I was that person living in another culture I might have a different view of the meaning of Globalization and capitalism.

The good and bad that come with globalization and capitalization seems to be either good or bad dependent upon what cultural lens it is looked at through. Capitalism has made it easier for workers to be exploited and for the majority of people to agree to it by essentially condoning it with the adage of “He who has the most profits win”. This is the bad side of capitalism that is built on one of the worst facets of humanity, which is greed, however this seems to be the world we live in today. Friedman’s account of the theory of Globalization seems to provide a good understanding and I think that the counter to having success in the system is by losing the cultural integrity and the difference of countries. This can be seen if too much homogenization occurs and the Lexus will start to outweigh the Olive Trees. I think that countries and people might not want to completely give up their whole identity for McMansions and McEverything. Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote “nothing is as sacred as the integrity of one’s own mind” and I think that can be true for countries as well. If a balance between the Lexus and Olive Trees is not maintained then “cultural integrity” will not be saved and nothing will be sacred anymore and this will eventually be a “lose-lose” situation for everybody involved and Capitalism won’t seem so “win-win”.

The relevance this book can provide a manager involved in enterprise engaging in international business is to always try to see the business venture from the other culture’s point of view first and not necessarily the culture one is currently living in. The McDonald’s theory might hold true for some countries, however the menu of pork and meat might not even be up for discussion in other countries. Also, it is important to note that companies that have lasted didn’t always have the best product and idea that trumped another company, but their strategy was built to sustain the long-haul and encompassed the bigger picture or say thirty years down the road. They did not take the approach of “take now and worry about it later”. A more strategic approach that embodies the central thesis of balance, while taking into account the cultural integrity of that country will create a lasting international business relationship between companies.