Have you ever noticed that products advertised as new and improved rarely are? Definitions of words and phrases constantly change to modify or gloss over original meanings. Politicians masters this. The same thing happens in economics. 

The policy of supply-side economics stressing limited government regulations and low taxes has been in use since the founding of the United States. In 1776, Adam Smith published “An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,” the result of years of research and observations in European countries. Smith castigated government intervention in economies and provided a model for free markets and free trade. These principles became the pillars of capitalism in the U.S., which has produced the highest standard of living for the greatest number of people in the world.

Enter Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who recently proposed in a speech to the World Economic Forum that President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better policies should be labeled modern supply-side economics. 

Yellen defended her new definition: “Modern supply-side economics seeks to spur economic growth by both boosting labor supply and raising productivity while reducing inequality and environment damage. Essentially, we aren’t just focused on achieving a high topline growth number that is unsustainable. We are instead aiming for growth that is inclusive and green.” What Yellen forgot to mention is the economy has never thrived under the intervention of federal bureaucrats.

Robert Genetski recently wrote in the Epoch Times: “During the 50 years when U.S. policies clearly followed free market classical principles, our country enjoyed its greatest progress.” 

Genetski said President Woodrow Wilson, known as the father of progressive economics, made the first departure from free market principles. “Wilson increased the money supply and government spending while enacting burdensome regulations, wage and price controls and tax increases intended for businesses and wealthy individuals.” The result of these policies was disastrous.

Since then, presidents have come and gone who favored government control over the economy as opposed to letting the free market work. The definition of insanity comes to mind: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. 

The pattern has held throughout history. Leadership favoring government intervention in business and high taxes leads to minimum economic growth and hurts the average American. 

Genetski wrote: “As great as the U.S. economy is, when we adopted policies similar to those found in underdeveloped nations, it has behaved like the economy of an underdeveloped nation.”

There’s no need to be misled by a new and improved label when it comes to the health of the economy. Studying the economic history of the United States provides leaders with actual data as to the most effective economic policies.
But politicians appear less interested in adopting policies proven to lift more citizens out of poverty and improve the standard of living for all and more interested in power and control. 

Don’t fall for adding the word modern before supply-side economics. This is an attempt to deceive. Look at the data, follow the results. 

Big government has never been the answer.