Back in 2005,Thomas Friedman, borrowing a term from Nandan Nilekani, declared the modern economic world to be flat. The phrase is short and catchy. Accurate or not, it definitely caught on.
Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz disagreed. In Making Globalization Work, he argued that globalization unreasonably favors the already affluent developed countries, making them even more powerful. And the "Americanization" of the globe is creating backlash against loss of cultural identity and local autonomy.
Meanwhile, Richard Florida (the Creative Class guy) says the world is "spiky." He asserts that centers of innovative power, such as Silicon Valley, Austin, Bangalore, Dublin, and Stockholm can be expected to dominate economic growth in the near-term, and perhaps beyond.
So - who is right? And what does all this mean for a prospective entrepreneur? Consider this...
"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth."Niels Bohr
Personally, I think there is value in all three of the above arguments, and that any of them taken alone is clearly insufficient to explain what I can observe of the world.
So, my friendly entrepreneur, what this means is that dependence upon any single analysis of the world is likely to be dangerous for your start-up business. And the warning applies not only to views of the entire global economic system, but also to local, regional, or national systems. And it is valid for tight niches of specialized end-users, too.
It is really, really tough to be correct, let alone profound. In fact, in the realm of the know-able, it is well-nigh impossible. There is too much to know. The good news is that entrepreneurs don't have to be profound, or even correct.
True entrepreneurs - like you - have two great advantages over mere mortals. You have high tolerance for uncertainty, the uncanny ability to manage risk. And, being non-dogmatic, you can revise your plans as new information becomes available over time.


