Can the president really control the economy? If so, why is the economy rarely ever "fixed" post election?
The Federal Reserve has more power over the economy through the manipulation of interest rates and the money supply through tools such as the reserve ratio than the president of the United States does.However, the president also has certain powers which can cause drastic effects on the economy. The president appoints the chairman of the Federal Reserve and the Senate approves them.The president has power to impact the economy by introducing stimulus in the form of either government spending or tax cuts. The president has the power to reduce Federal spending and raise taxes which could also affect the economy.The problem with assigning either credit or blame to the sitting president for his economic policies is that a lot of the effects of the president's policies won't be fully seen until after that president leaves office. For example, when a president creates a new entitlement such as FDR did with Social Security for example, the effects of that new program can impact many generations of future Americans. If Donald Trump gets elected and does build a wall between the United States and Mexico, it will likely have a long term impact on illegal immigration in the United States. Those illegal immigrants will no longer be available to take the work of places that are hiring them now such as construction contractors and farmers. Those jobs will have to be filled by Americans instead of illegals. That will probably put some upward pressure on wages in those fields because contractors and farmers will have to pay a premium to get regular Americans to do those jobs compared to the low wages they could pay illegal immigrants under the table.
Does the economy grow best under Democratic or Republican presidents?
It can take a few years for any policies put into place to have a direct effect on the economy, but from past history, tax cuts ALWAYS improve the economy. Those usually happen when republicans get into office. Look how we went from a recession in 1999 to the most robust economy in our history in 2007. It's taken a down turn so far this year, so maybe we need another tax cut. Not this silly rebate thing, but a real tax reduction. I'd take a cut in the gasoline taxes for starters. ...wishful thinking :-)
Is socialism compatible with democracy?
Authentic socialism requires a high level of participation by the masses — participation in democratic control of the industries where you work, and participation in democratic control over how the society is run — its administration (how rules are enforced) and making policy.An essential aim of socialism as a movement historically is the liberation of the working class from subordination to dominating, exploiting classes. This aim can’t be realized unless workers take over the democratic, collective management of the various industries where they work. And that requires a participatory form of democracy — not just electing leaders — through participation in assemblies where the basic rules and direction are decided.The same is true for control over what is produced by the economic system and its effects on the population. Actual social control — that’s the “social” in socialism — requires participatory forms of democracy, such as neighborhood assemblies, or community councils and conventions of delegates elected from the workplace and neighborhood assemblies — to assure a high level of actual popular control.This differs from the systems of socalled “representative democracy” that exist at present in Europe and North America where bureaucratic top down states have a kind of democratic figleaf of elections — but the masses can’t really control what the politicians do once they’re elected.So authentic socialism — actual empowerment of the working class majority — requires a higher level of democracy, in the economy as well as in the overall social control of public affairs and economic planning.Repressive one-party states that called themselves “socialist” (like USSR or Communist China) were fake socialism — it was a case of politicians and bureaucrats using the “socialist” label to paper a semblance of legitimacy over their one-party repressive regimes. The economic systems in those countries were actually a kind of bureaucratic class controlled economy — not an authentic form of socialism. The lack of democracy, the lack of rights of workers to independent unions and so on — these were evidence of just how fake it was.
Is Socialism considered to be an anti-authoritarian government?
Like said by the first person. Socialism, Communism and Capitalism are not governments. They are economic systems. Forms of government include Democracy, Republic, Totalitarian, Authoritarian, Oligarch, Monarch, Aristocracy, Tyranny, Dictatorship, Anarchy etc. Capitalism, Communism and Socialism are not forms of government because they do not define how to "rule" the people. They only define how money is earned and spent. They also do not define how to enforce these forms of economy. Depending on how they are enforced determines what government they are. You can have a Communist state that is run by a Democracy just like you can have a Capitalist state run by a Dictatorship. Economy and Government are separate and shouldn't be compared with each other. That is why I get upset when I see somebody comparing Socialism to Democracy. Socialism can be Democratic just like any other form of economy. Just like Capitalism can be any form of government so can Socialism and Communism.
Do you think a socialist economic system could be compatible with a democratic political system?
More than a plutocratic one is.