Many Americans have forgotten how to get what they want in large part due to supply-side economics that have too often left American consumers choosing between cheap, trashy and sometimes toxic products.

Supply-side economics is promoted through tax cuts and political favors for corporations that are considered suppliers of goods and services to the market. The idea is that such favors will help suppliers invest in expansion and that such expansion will ultimately result in more jobs. This was the prime selling point when Reagan was pushing the theory as a viable solution for Congress to consider way back in the 20th century.

But this theory has been proven less effective by the year as corporations are finding more efficient means to expand production and services while minimizing the cost of labor either by supressing wages or outsourcing jobs.

It’s unfortunate for working-class Americans that this reality is obscured by deceptive politics designed to preserve the popularity of supply-side economics for the benefit of the investor-class.

This is an ongoing argument between woke citizens who are aware of the scam and loyal partisans who automatically reject anything stated by the political “opposition”.

But aside from the more politically charged results of supply-side economics such as bigger government deficits and more national debt, not to mention an assist on the decline of the middle-class that has led to such temper tantrums as the election of a convicted felon to the highest office in the land, I have noticed a few other symptoms of a culture deprived of consumer power.

One of the most obvious places to look is in the way Americans shop. To some extent we do assess our own needs first then look for the goods and services that satisfy those needs, thereby creating demand. But more and more, we find Americans making choices dictated by marketing campaigns. Which is to say, a supplier decides what to make and then convinces consumers to buy it.

The food industry is an embarrassing example where Americans have been subjected to a diet dictated by suppliers that maximize profits by selling cheap and unhealthy, even hazardous food. Here supply-side economics is paired with a resistance to regulations that you would typically find in other developed countries where consumers have more political power to demand quality standards.

This is why Mexican Coca-Cola uses cane sugar and American Coca-Cola uses highly processed corn syrup. As unhealthy as cane sugar is, high-fructose corn syrup is far worse but it’s also more cost effective for suppliers.

The American diet is the most unhealthy diet in the developer world, mostly because the government has been favoring the investment interests of suppliers even when the effect on consumers is detrimental.

Pharmaceuticals are another example… Americans have no choice but to pay many times more for the same prescription than Europeans do. This is again because suppliers in the U.S. get the benefit of a “pro-business” government that has no problem ignoring the effect this has on consumers. U.S. suppliers will tell you that they have no choice because they have to recover the cost of research and development. But all one has to do is look at their record breaking profits to realize they are lying.

Another example of unregulated supply-side abuse is the telecommunications sector where suppliers such as AT&T, Verizon and Sprint dictate their own selection of devices that can be used on their networks. The best way to describe this scam is to imagine the automotive industry in the same context. Indeed, if not for the more regulated government of the 1950s our roads might have been developed in the private sector and deals between road providers and car providers may well have developed in the same way the cell phone industry did 40 years later, where your choice of cars would depend on which road system you pay to subscribe to.

Are you paying for access to I-95? Get a Ford because Honda’s aren’t allowed on that route. Sound ridiculous? It probably wouldn’t if you were brain washed into thinking it’s normal just like we’re brain washed into thinking it’s normal for cell providers to limit our choice of phones.

So, what would a demand-side economy look like? And what impact would heavy regulations have on suppliers?

One thing is certain, consumers would have more power. Instead of choosing between a limited selection of crappy products that suppliers are trying to convince us to buy, we would be making demands on the market for products we actually want.

But what happens when consumer demands and government regulations converge, making it impossible for a supplier to satisfy both? Well, one of  two things will happen. Either it can’t be done, in which case consumers will have to accept the impossibility OR someone else will come along, figure out a way to do it, put the old supplier out of business and hire their workers, maybe even creating more jobs in the process.

Ironically, Ronald Reagan, the man who pushed for supply-side economics, also indicated that it’s not actually a bad thing for corporations to get competition from disruptors. He called it “creative destruction”.

One of the reasons why I liked the Biden/Harris message is that they were trying to return power to the consumers. It’s hard to know what the Trump message is since on the surface it’s all about revenge and spite, but the 2017 Tax Cut was a pretty clear signal that Trump is NOT on board with giving any kind of power to consumers.