Critics argue that the world is not "flat" but "spiky," with wealth, innovation, and power highly concentrated in a few central cities. What are your thoughts on this perspective?

Hello, this is a really interesting question—one that's been hotly debated over the last decade or so. On one hand, we saw the book The World Is Flat become a global sensation. On the other hand, we’ve personally witnessed major cities becoming increasingly cutthroat ("ruthless competition"), with absurdly high housing prices, yet significantly more opportunities.

Let me share my thoughts on this in plain language.

I think "spiky" is closer to reality than "flat," but the truth is probably more complex.

These two viewpoints aren't entirely mutually exclusive; they describe two different facets of the same globalization process.

First, is "The World Is Flat" wrong?

Not entirely. When Thomas L. Friedman proposed this idea in 2005, the core argument was that the internet and globalization leveled out the barriers to the flow of information, capital, and talent.

This was true to some extent. For example:

Leveled knowledge acquisition: In the past, to learn something new, you had to go to libraries in big cities or prestigious universities. Now, a child from a mountainous village in Guizhou can watch Harvard’s open courses online as long as they have internet access.
Leveled business entry barriers: An artisan can now sell their work to the entire world on Taobao or TikTok. There’s no longer a need to open a physical store, say, on Beijing’s Wangfujing Street.
Leveled collaboration: An American company can outsource software development to a team in India and set up a customer service center in the Philippines, all collaborating in real time via the internet.

This force "flattening the world" is real. It provides opportunities for many people and regions previously on the periphery to participate in global competition.

Then why say the world is "spiky"?

Because this "flattening" process is uneven; instead, it causes certain places to "suck in" most of the resources, becoming exceptionally "spiky." It's like trying to flatten a pile of sand. It might look level, but once the wind blows, it invariably forms taller dunes.

A "spiky" world is mainly evident in these ways:

1. The “Clustering Effect” of Talent and Innovation

This is straightforward to grasp. It’s like opening a restaurant: everyone wants to set up shop on the food street because that’s where the customers are, the peers are, and communication is easier. Innovation works the same.

Smart people like to gather with other smart people: Top financial talent flock to Wall Street in New York or the City of London; top programmers and entrepreneurs cluster in Silicon Valley or Zhongguancun in Beijing. When people gather together, ideas collide, sparking new concepts and giving birth to new companies.
Companies follow the talent: Why are Google and Apple headquartered in Silicon Valley? Because that's where they can recruit the best engineers from around the world. Talent attracts big companies; where the companies go, opportunity follows. This creates a virtuous cycle where the strong grow stronger.

2. The “Matthew Effect” of Capital

Money has a "sense of smell"; it flows to the safest places with the highest returns.

Would an investor fund an experienced startup team in Silicon Valley or a fledgling company in some unknown small town? Most likely, the former. Because big cities offer mature industrial chains, markets, and exit mechanisms, reducing investment risk.
This leads to capital becoming highly concentrated in just a few financial and innovation hubs. These hubs act like giant pumps, sucking in capital resources from around the globe.

3. The “Moats” of Power and Infrastructure

Major cities don’t just have money and people; they also boast the best infrastructure and political resources.

Hardware: The best airports, the fastest internet, the top universities and hospitals.
Software: Government policy support, comprehensive legal services, an international cultural atmosphere.

These are advantages that smaller cities cannot quickly replicate. They form deep "moats," further solidifying the dominance of these central hubs.

My conclusion: The world is forming several "spikes" through the process of being "flattened."

Therefore, for me, the most apt metaphor is this:

Globalization and the internet act like a massive bulldozer, slowly leveling the terrain and making many places more accessible. But simultaneously, some places—due to their unique 'geology' (talent, capital, power)—are pushed even higher by this very force, forming steep peaks.

Ultimately, the world takes on a peculiar topography: mostly flat plains, pierced by several towering peaks.

For individuals: This means you could choose to leverage the networked "plain" to live a "small yet beautiful" life. Alternatively, you could attempt to scale those "peaks," where competition is fierce, but the potential rewards are significantly higher.
For society: This poses major challenges, primarily regional development imbalances and widening wealth gaps. How to enable the resources from the "peaks" to flow somewhat toward the vast "plains" is a critical problem all nations face. Current discussions around "remote work," for instance, can be seen as an attempt to slightly flatten the "peaks" and raise the "plains."

Overall, the "world is spiky" perspective serves as a crucial and more realistic complement to "the world is flat." It reminds us that alongside the opportunities globalization brings, we must also confront the inequalities it exacerbates.