Changing paradigms

The world is greatly different today than the one of my childhood more than four decades ago.  There is evidence of that all around me.  Microwave ovens.  DVR’s.  Cell phones. GPS.  The list seems endless.  Things that did not exist, when I was a child in the 1960’s, are now ubiquitous and taken for granted by children of the 21st century.

In a physical and technological sense, the changes are apparent and widely accepted.  Yet in other less-tangible ways, they are not so obvious.  That seems to be the basis for the recent brouhaha over Mitt Romney’s business experience.

Rival GOP candidate Rick Perry sought to gain traction when he called Romney a “vulture” rather than a “venture” capitalist.  Forty years ago, his attempt might have worked.  But in the current world, it did not resonate as it once may have with the general populace.

In decades past, it was expected that the path to riches was one built on venture capitalism.  You designed a product, put people to work building or making that product, sold it to a public that needed that product, and made a profit while simultaneously providing “good” jobs and benefits to your employees.

All was good, and that is why the 1950s and 1960s were the halcyon days of America.  But things were to change in an ironic way.  All the while that we were enjoying the good life as Americans, we were also railing against other non-democratic countries of the world, especially those Communists, insisting they should adopt our way of life.

We felt a compulsion to export democracy and, concomitantly, free-market capitalism.  Ironically, our success achieving the latter has now eroded our ability to support a middle class.

There no longer is a manufacturing base for our economy.  Now, people devoid of exceptional abilities can no longer compensate by working hard for an hourly wage.  Instead, we look to other nations to do the manufacturing for us.  They now have those jobs, rather than us.

As for our money, we now seek to grow it through, in Perry’s words, vulture rather than venture capitalism.  It makes necessary people such as Mitt Romney.

This is not an endorsement of what has developed.  Instead, it is merely an explanation of why we have arrived at where we are.  It is also why Barack Obama has had no success, to any notable degree, in putting people back to work.

We still want an economy in which a large middle-class can survive and prosper.  We still want good jobs and good benefits for the masses.  The desire is there.  All that we are lacking is the means to do it.

So those with the “smarts” to do it mentally are still able to thrive.  But those who lack such mental prowess are left to flounder.  Ironically, our own success at exporting our way of life, combined with advances in technology, is contributing to our demise.